In every instance, using BuildAMol required fewer lines of code to accomplish identical molecular construction, typically resulting in a 50% decrease compared to Stk code (Figure , upper bar chart). While BuildAMol demonstrated faster execution times in examples 1, 2, and 4 (Figure , lower bar chart), for example 5 (a rotaxane), the execution time was comparable for both. The only example where Stk clearly outperformed BuildAMol was example 3, the metal complex. This can be attributed to BuildAMol's sequential optimizations for ligand placement around the metal center. This approach is computationally expensive and can potentially lead to unstable structures. In contrast, Stk utilizes a dedicated geometric approach for metal complex generation, resulting in faster and more stable performance. It is important to note, however, that the Stk-generated metal complex exhibited misalignment in half of its Nitrogen atoms.