Benchmarking excited-state methods with the focus on vertical excitation energies has been established as a common assessment tool (see e.g. Ref. and references therein). Here one assumes that excitations occur without a change in geometry. Corresponding studies showed that TDDFT excitation energies, which are classified as Rydberg states or associated with a significant amount of charge transfer, are underestimated leading to errors in the order of several eV. A common remedy is to include exact exchange, suggesting that the investigated ADMM-approximated hybrid kernel as well as the sTDA kernel with its motivation to capture the correct physics and asymptotics of electronic interactions could be well-suited compromises to retain sufficient accuracy while reaching high efficiency for a broad range of applications. Analyzing the nature of a transition is beyond the scope of the current work and, for the sake of convenience, we restricted the analysis of vertical excitation energies to a direct comparison of the first 10 excitation energies with states being assigned solely by the corresponding ES energy. Such a simplified comparison might not be justified and lead to wrong assignments when comparing different basis set sizes, but should give a valid assessment of the accuracy of the different kernels for basis sets of the same type. Figure is displaying normal distributions based on the MD and STD for the first 10 vertical excitation energies for optimized geometries, comparing ADMM-PBE0 computations with conventional PBE0 results as well as the performance of PBE0, ADMM-PBE0 and sTDA kernels with respect to a PBE0/TZV2P/CP2K and a PBE0/def2-QZVPP/TURBOMOLE reference. Corresponding statistical data is furthermore summarized in Tables and as well as in the SI. As shown by the upper plot on the left, the auxiliary basis set size reduces -in analogy to our findings for the geometrical data -the ADMM error in the vertical excitation energies when increasing from double-zeta to triple-zeta size and brings only little further improvement when adding polarization functions. Taking the PBE0 computations within the largest TZV2P basis as reference exposes the impact of the increasingly large primary basis set as visualized in the upper plot on the right: PBE0 / DZVP as well as ADMM-PBE0 / DZVP+dzp computations show an equally broad error distribution with MDs and STDs rising up to -0.39 eV and 0.71 eV, respectively. On the other end of the accuracy spectrum, ADMM-PBE0 / TZV2P+tz2p results have a relatively sharp distribution with a ME and STD of 0.01 eV and 0.22 eV. TZVP errors for the PBE0, ADMM-PBE0 and sTDA kernels lie in between those extreme values, highlighting that ADMM has only a negligible impact on excitation energies and that MDs of sTDA are below 0.44 or 0.36 eV depending on the chosen GS reference. This result is in agreement with the error range of 0.2 -0.5 eV of the original molecular benchmark studies.