Figure shows performance of ranked methods relative to experiment. In general, the AMOEBA/DDM/BAR method tends to yield GDCC binding free energies which are too unfavorable, while all other ranked methods tend to predict binding free energies that are too favorable. The AMOEBA/DDM/BAR method gave calculated values that most directly correlated with experimental ones, as evidenced by a slope, , of 1.11. With this approach, only exoOA-g4 had an error larger than 2 kcal/mol. The exoOA-g2 host-guest system was the only outlier for the RESP/GAFF/MMPBSA-Cor method, and the participants suggested this was likely due to guest g2 containing a chlorine atom. The QM-based method B2PLYPD3/SMD QZ-R had large prediction errors in more cases than any other method, in part because it overestimated the dynamic range of predictions and led to calculated binding free energies that were often far too negative. The xtb-GNF/MachineLearning/CORINA MD had smaller errors, but the correlation between calculated and experimental free energies was poor.