Benchmarking Methods. We surveyed a wide variety of computational methods: 2 post-Hartree-Fock methods, 17 DFT functionals, 4 composite methods, 4 semiempirical methods, 5 NNPs, and 2 force fields. All calculations were run through ORCA 5.0.3 18 except for: r 2 SCAN-3c and ωB97X-3c which were run in ORCA 6.0.0; the NNPs, which were run through the Atomic Simulation Environment; and the Sage 20 forcefield, which was run through OpenMM. Unless otherwise specified, DFT calculations were run using the def2-QZVP basis set and wavefunction-based methods were run using the cc-pVQZ 23 basis set. Double hybrid methods were run with automatically generated auxiliary basis sets using the AutoAux keyword. DLPNO 25 calculations were run with corresponding cc-pVnZ/C auxiliary basis sets and the TightPNO setting applied. CBS extrapolation was performed using the two-point CBS extrapolation method outlined in the ORCA 6 manual (extrapolate_ep1_mdci) using energies from cc-pVTZ and cc-pVQZ calculations. Timing. First, a few general remarks about timing. Unlike energy-based comparisons, timing comparisons are inherently hardware-and implementation-dependent, and thus are virtually impossible to reproduce with perfect accuracy. As such, the timing benchmarks reported here should be taken as general estimates of the relative speed of different methods, and not as concrete predictions of the amount of time that these calculations will take. Despite this uncertainty, understanding the relative speed of different methods is crucial for designing efficient and scalable computational workflows, and so we here report timing results for all methods under study.