FEM and ECIS+FDA (first two rows) perform comparably well, having RMSDs of excitation energies between 0.1 and 0.2 eV. However, similarly to the Frank-Condon geometry, the FEM spectra miss a lot of peaks and contain artificial peaks, while the ECIS+FDA spectra qualitatively reproduce most peaks of the direct calculation. Nevertheless, ECIS+FDA still exhibits significant numerical differences in energies, oscillator strengths, and state ordering with respect to the direct spectra. For example, in geometry R 1 , the relative ordering of states S 2 -S 4 is apparently correct, but the oscillator strengths of S 2 and S 4 are too low. Furthermore, states S 6 -S 8 have significantly too low oscillator strengths in ECIS+FDA, compared to the direct calculation, indicating qualitatively wrong state characters. A similar behavior of ECIS+FDA can be observed in the other four geometries. Arguably, the best agreement was reached for R 3 , where the state ordering and oscillator strengths are qualitatively correct, although ECIS+FDA shows a systematic blueshift and systematically lower oscillator strengths, compared to the reference. Here, we should note that the RMSD values are computed for the adiabatic states, so changes of state ordering of nearly degenerate : Comparison of electronic absorption spectra of G 4 calculated with the direct method, the FEM, and the six considered variants of ECI (rows) on five geometries (R 1 -R 5 ) sampled from the ground-state vibrational Wigner distribution (columns). Blue dots represent the direct-method results, while red lines represent the FEM and ECI spectra. The pairs of numbers at the top of each panel are RMSD values of excitation energies and oscillator strengths.