We also performed separate statistical analyses on valence and Rydberg states to gain deeper insights into the performances of such methods. We report the resulting indicators in Fig. and in Tables S8-S10 in the SI. The 3𝐴 1 state of pyridazine has been excluded from such statistics due to its mixed character. The TPA response of this state is largely underestimated by several methods, with differences (in a.u.) of 117.0 for Q-CCSD, 117.9 for E-CCSD, 111.1 for I-ADC2, 234.8 for CAM-B3LYP, 302.8 for LC-BLYP33, and 252 for LC-BLYP47. Whereas, CC2 performs very well with an underestimation of only 4.2, within B3LYP, this state is also responsible for the large MAX + error of 349.2. For BH&HLYP, this state might be resonance enhanced (see Table in the SI), and it has therefore been excluded. Focusing on the Ryd-berg transitions reveals an improvement in the MAPE for all methods, indicating that they are globally easier to describe than valence states. Q-CCSD and E-CCSD emerge as the top performers with very small MAPEs of 10.5% and 12.1%, respectively, closely followed by CAM-B3LYP (25.2%) and BH&HLYP (26.2%). LC-based methods exhibit MAPEs of 32.8% (LC-BLYP33) and 36.0% (LC-BLYP47), while Q-CC2, I-ADC2, and B3LYP consistently show the poorest performances for Rydberg with MAPEs of 40-50% range. Nevertheless all methods demonstrate excellent correlation with 𝑅 2 values exceeding 0.95. For valence states we observe a general decline in accuracy as compared to Rydberg transitions across all methods. Despite this, Q-CCSD and E-CCSD remain the most satisfying methods, with MAPEs of 24.8% and 36.6%, respectively. Interestingly, unlike in the case of Rydberg states, Q-CC2 follows closely with a MAPE of 54.2%. It is well-known that CC2 generally performs better for valence than Rydberg transitions. The performance of all TD-DFT methods is comparable, ordered as: CAM-B3LYP (55.0%), LC-BLYP47 (57.4%), BH&HLYP (62.4%), LC-BLYP33 (65.0%), and B3LYP (67.7%). I-ADC2 has the worst MAPE at 98.9%. When examining the determination's coefficients, wavefunction methods demonstrate excellent results: 0.98 for both Q-CCSD and E-CCSD, 0.95 for Q-CC2, and 0.90 for I-ADC2. In contrast, TD-DFT values show limited capacity to reproduce trends, with 𝑅 2 values ranging from 0.66 for B3LYP to 0.49 for BH&HLYP only, despite relatively small absolute and percentage errors,.