We previously noted the good performance of M06-L. This functional on average stabilizes HS states slightly (average DGH-L = -2.6 kcal/mol) but predicts SCO behavior for ca. 84% (80 out of 95) of the complexes, on par with modB3LYP with aHF = 0.10 (93% or 88 of 95, Figures and and Supporting Information Table ). In contrast, MN15-L, a more recently developed Minnesota functional, strongly stabilizes HS states with an average DGH-L of -24.8 kcal/mol, thus not predicting SCO behavior for any of the complexes (Supporting Information Figure and Table ). The difference in predictions between local meta-GGA Minnesota functionals could be a result of the different parametrization of MN15-L and M06-L (58 vs 34 parameters). The M06-L 160 parametrization was done with data that included bond energies of transition metal (TM) diatomics, and MN15-L 167 used additional datasets, including TM datasets for open-shell TM dimer bond energies and TM atomic excitation energies. Neither parameterization dataset was strongly weighted towards coordination complexes with mid-row transition metals, nor is it obvious why the MN15-L parameterization should be so strongly HS biased.