The MP2 results are reported in table 4, whereas the TDDFT results are reported in table . The ddX results agree perfectly with the PCMSolver results, confirming the validity of the implementation. It was not possible to perform the PCMSolver calculations in cyclohexane due to numerical errors, and in this case, ddX showed its better stability. We did not report the timings, as all the investigated models performed similarly, suggesting that the bottleneck of the calculations is not solving the linear systems but rather computing the electronic integrals at the grid points, an operation which is similar for both ddX and PCMSolver. However, it should be noted that since ddX is entirely linear scaling, we can expect a molecule size at which the PCMSolver calculation becomes more expensive as the quadratic contribution for solving the linear system becomes dominant. To conclude, the ddX implementation in Psi4 shows similar performance and improved stability with respect to traditional implementations while generating the same results. Further, for this size of the solute, there is no significant difference in the timings between ddCOSMO and ddPCM as opposed to PCMsolver. Overall, the Psi4-ddX interface is ready to be used in production calculations and its linear scaling allows us to consider much larger molecules than the nile red molecule.