Among the lower-order methods evaluated, Q-CCSD demonstrated superior performance and reliability, showing no significant differences of accuracy between Rydberg and valence transitions. Consequently, Q-CCSD is recommended when feasible. Conversely, I-ADC2 consistently performed the worst across all subsets and cannot be advised from the present work. For Rydberg states, E-CCSD emerged as a reliable and cost-effective alternative to Q-CCSD, while Q-CC2 underperformed. Indeed for such cases certain TD-DFT XCF, such as BH&HLYP and CAM-B3LYP, should be preferred when CCSD calculations are impractical. For valence states, the performance of all methods diminished, particularly for states with large 𝛿 TPA , which are significant for practical applications. Here E-CCSD showed some limitations, and Q-CC2 appeared to be a valuable choice considering its lower computational scaling. Although TD-DFT methods exhibited excellent percentage errors compared to the reference, their very small correlation suggests that the relative error pattern might significantly change for larger molecules.