When ranking the assessed DFAs we con-sider the MADs first, followed by RMSDs and absolute MDs when necessary. It is known that DHDFs are the most accurate DFAs for ground-state calculations, as well as singlet-singlet and singlet-triplet excitation energy calculations. Thus, it would be reasonable to expect that this would also be true for doublet-doublet excitations. While the best-performing DFAs for the radical test set are indeed DHDFs, as discussed below, the assessed hybrid functionals show comparable performance to some of the DHDFs tested. For instance, TD-ωB97X (MAD = 0.18 eV) is the eleventh-best of all tested approaches when TD-and TDA-DFT results are combined and ranked after the above-mentioned criteria; it is the fourth-best among all full TD-DFT methods. Unexpectedly, the worst-performing functionals are also DHDFs, which highlights the challenging nature of doublet-doublet excitation energy calculations. A total of six DHDF-based approaches have the same or worse MAD than the worst hybrid approach TDA-B3LYP (MAD = 0.28 eV), namely TDA-SOS-B2PLYP, TDA-PBE-QIDH, TD/TDA-RSX-0DH, and TD/TDA-RSX-QIDH.