Martini 2 captures membrane properties quite accurately , and the trends captured by both the reparametrized Martini 3 lipid parameters and Martini 2 are overall similar (Figure ). However, Martini 3 results differ from Martini 2 in a few key areas. The APL of the reparametrized Martini 3 lipids is slightly lower for all tested lipids, as discussed in Section 2.2.1, a compromise made to improve known issues of too low gel-liquid phase transition temperatures of Martini 2 . In the reparametrized Martini 3 lipids, the APL, diffusion, and area compressibility (Ka) (Figure ) properties show a clear distinction between liquid and gel-phase lipids. For example, saturated Martini 3 lipids transition from liquid to gel between di-myristoyl (14:0/14:0) and di-palmitoyl (16:0/16:0) lipid tails at the tested temperature of 310 K but Martini 2 lipids remain liquid, even at longer tail lengths. Another key difference is the higher granularity in resolving lipid tails, incrementing at 2 instead of 4 carbons and resulting in a more gradual change in lipid properties compared to Martini 2. This automated study resulted in over 1300 different simulation systems and all analyzed bilayer properties are available in tabulated format in SI Table . The results are valuable for comparison between lipids, to explore overall trends in membrane properties, and as a reference for expected properties of the tested lipids. However, as these are spatially small simulations, with specific temperature and pressure controls, performed at a specific lipid charge state, and all started in a semi-liquid phase, several caveats must be considered. For example, starting with small, preformed bilayers (stabilized by periodic boundary conditions) allows for simulations of planar membranes even with lipids that would normally not form lamellar phases.