Surprisingly, or perhaps not so surprisingly, when using DFT, the agreement with experimental data is at best reasonable. Indeed, there is little doubt that the density isobars predicted by density functional theory are not yet on par with those obtained from carefully constructed semi-empirical models. So why bother with the costly density functional theory calculations? The explanation is straightforward: as our microscopic understanding of water has progressed over time, the scientic community has redirected its focus toward more intricate questions. These encompass the interactions between water and surfaces, the nucleation of water at nanoparticles, and processes like the electrolysis-induced hydrogen production or the hydrogen-to-water conversion in fuel cells. Understanding the interface between water and surfaces, frequently metallic ones, is imperative across these cases. Particularly, the simulations of electrolysis and fuel cells, where bonds are continuously broken and reformed, necessitate the application of rst-principles calculations. However, conducting high-level quantum chemical calculations, for which some force elds have been calibrated, remains challenging for surfaces, or practically impossible for metallic ones. Consequently, density functional theory is the go-to approach. Nonetheless, employing density functional theory potentially adversely impacts the properties of water, as already discussed above. So ideally, one seeks a density functional that accurately describes the liquid state of water, encompassing at least the density and melting temperature. Thus, identifying a density functional that reasonably describes the properties of water is a pressing scientic issue that will strongly impact future water studies. Finding a suitable functional is the core goal of the present work.