When observers are asked to localize the peripheral position of a small probe with respect to the mid-position of a spatially extended comparison stimulus, they tend to judge the probe as being more peripheral than the mid-position of the comparison stimulus. This relative mislocalization seems to emerge from differences in absolute localization, that is the comparison stimulus is localized more towards the fovea than the probe. The present study compared saccadic behaviour and relative localization judgements in three experiments and determined the quantitative relationship between both measures. The results showed corresponding effects in localization errors and saccadic behaviour. Moreover, it was possible to estimate the amount of the relative mislocalization by means of the saccadic amplitude.