Stepping back from the finer details of each system, Fig. plots errors in conformational energies for all three molecules (ROY, molecule X, and axitinib), relative to CCSD(T) benchmarks, indicating the RMS error for each DFT approach and for SCS-MP2D. (The RMS errors are also summarized in Fig. .) Relative to self-consistent DFT, the DC-DFT approach generally reduces the width of the error distributions by up to a factor of 3-4, and DC-hybrid functionals afford the tightest error distributions. At the same time, even the best of the DC-DFT models affords errors that are about twice as large as those obtained using SCS-MP2D. Taken together, these results highlight how DC-DFT models can provide a useful, pragmatic approach for improving the quality of common DFT functionals in challenging systems with density-driven delocalization error, but that higher-level methods may still be preferred for high-accuracy work.