The top two methods, DDM/AMOEA/BAR and ATM/GAFF2-AM1BCC/TIP3P/HREM, made different predictions despite similar overall accuracy. The RMS difference between these methods was 1.79 kcal/mol for TEMOA and 2.30 kcal/mol for TEETOA. These methods used similar approaches but differ in the choice of force field (AMOEBA VS GAFF2), and outliers between the methods highlight the current limitations and advantages of these models.