While for organic molecules consisting of elements Z ≤ 18, many different methods for atomic partial charge assignment are available, this is not the case for the An series of elements, Both methods agree well with the reference charges, yielding almost identical MAEs and RMSEs of 0.2 and 0.3 e -, respectively. This is particularly noteworthy as the classical EEQ model does not treat the electronic structure but only distributes charges over the molecule based on electronegativities and three further empirical parameters. In contrast, the CEH-v2 model explicitly treats the valence electrons (including the f -shell), which is expected to improve the consistency of the atomic charges. This is also observed for the PCCs and SRCCs, which significantly improve with CEH-v2. Visual inspection of the regression shows that CEH-v2 provides almost no systematic error, whereas EEQ underestimates the absolute value of the charges. The latter is not in agreement with the previous analysis on randomly selected organic molecules, for which EEQ overestimated the magnitude of the partial charges. The number of outliers with |q i,j -q i,DFT | > 1.0 is slightly higher for CEH-v2 compared to the EEQ model. The reason for the distinctly higher CEH-v2 error measures for the actinides in comparison to the randomly selected molecules might be both i) the fact that only charges of the electronically more complex actinide atoms were considered and ii) the unusual and partially artificial multiplicity and oxidation state assignments in the AcQM data set. The performance for the lanthanide series has been assessed in the original publication of the CEH model and is similar to the actinides.