This approach is not expected to deliver a systematic behavior of J TT as it is observed for J 0 , J 1 , and J * . Therefore, we will only discuss the position of the global minimum, which is located at (0.10; 0.15), see yellow star in Figure . In general, due to the change of nature (MC vs. MLCT) of the lowest triplet states depending on the rangeseparation parameters, it is not clear whether a smooth dependency of the tuned functional on the parameters can be expected, as the tuned states may not maintain the same character for the whole range of parameters. In the present case the optimal parameters obtained with triplet tuning are similar to the ω value affording a minimum to J 0 in the T MLCT state for α = 0.10; compare the position of the yellow asterisk and nearest green circle in Fig. . Fortunately, in this range of parameters, the MLCT state is the lowest one such that the tuning results are consistent with each other. Using the ∆SCF method we obtained an optimal set of range-separation parameters of (0.00; 0.14) (Set A) considering the electronic ground state. In addition, the ∆SCF method applied to different electronic states showed that while set A can be seen as a good compromise among electronic states of different character, for individual states, other range-separation parameters are optimal. Furthermore, studies of similar iron complexes typically recommended to include a certain portion of constant exchange in the functional, i.e. α = 0. 56,57 Thus, it is interesting to investigate the influence of the range-separation parameters on static properties of [Fe(cpmp) 2 ] 2+ .