The electrostatic models were evaluated analogously to the force fields, by comparing RMSD 30 and relative energies for predicted crystal structures that match the experimental structures across the molecules in the test set. HF performs surprisingly well on geometries, which might be due to cancellation of errors (HF exaggeration of charge separation could make up for the lack of explicit polarization in the force field method), but gives among the largest ranges for relative energies. The higher cost of MP2 calculations does not lead to better results than DFT-based electrostatic models. The results are similar among the DFT methods tested, showing that the average performance of CSP is not particularly sensitive to the functional and basis set from which the electrostatic model is derived.