Seismic moment accumulation rate is a fundamental parameter for assessing seismic hazard. It can be estimated geodetically from either fault‐based modeling, or strain rate‐based calculations, where fault‐based models largely depend on the rheological layering and the number of faults. The strain‐rate method depends on an unknown (Kostrov) thickness used to convert strain rate into moment rate. In Part 1 of this study, we use three published fault‐based models from southern California to establish the value of the Kostrov thickness such that the total moment from the strain‐rate approach, calculated from the fault model‐predicted strain rate, matches the fault‐based approach. Constrained thickness estimates of 7.3, 9.7, and 11.5 km (6.4–13.0 km, including uncertainties) suggest that the 11 km value used in previous studies may be too large and a lower value may be more accurate. In Part 2 we use calibrated values of Kostrov thickness, along with the latest compilation of GNSS velocity data, to partition moment rate into on‐fault and off‐fault moment rate, where off‐fault varies from 32%–43% of the total moment rate. The largest uncertainty is related to the method used to interpolate sparse GNSS data. Lastly, we compare our estimates of total moment rate (mean: 2.13 ± 0.42 × 1019 Nm/yr) with the historical seismic catalog. Results suggest that including uncertainties in Kostrov thickness brings fault‐based geodetic moment rate closer to the seismic moment release (particularly when aseismic afterslip is accounted for), while the (uncertain) values of off‐fault moment rate push geodetic moment rates to be larger than seismic moment rates. Plain Language Summary One commonly‐used method of evaluating the future earthquake potential of a known fault is to estimate the moment rate accumulating along that fault. In other words, one can estimate how much earthquake energy is accumulating over time, caused by the forces that propel plate boundary motion along fault systems. Two ways to do this are: (a) using detailed fault models of plate boundary motion, which are constrained by satellite‐based measurements of surface motion or (b) using those satellite‐ based measurements directly through the estimation of regional strain rate. Here, we investigate the uncertainties present in the latter method by comparing previously published estimates of fault‐based moment rate, with their equivalent strain rate‐based versions. We estimate uncertainties related to the strain‐rate based method, which can lead to an over‐ or under‐estimation of earthquake potential on a given fault system. In addition, we explore the off‐fault moment rate accumulation in southern California which can help identify areas of enhanced moment accumulation and thus increased seismic hazard.