Despite the similar performance across different restriction levels, the errors associated with isodesmic reactions are considerably higher than those obtained using the two BAC offer superior accuracy and reliability across a wide range of species and levels of theory. Furthermore, IDRs tend to be applicable to fewer species compared to BACs, limiting their general utility. To ensure a more fair and comprehensive comparison between BAC and IDR methods, we focus on reference species where both approaches can be applied and subsequently compare the performance of BACs and different IDR RC schemes for the same set of species. Figure presents a comparison of m-BAC vs. RC2, while additional results comparing the performance of IDRs with different RC schemes to both m-BACs and p-BACs are provided in the supporting information. These results consistently demonstrate that BACs outperform IDRs, even when considering only the species that could be treated with the most constrained RC4 scheme (Figures and). This finding highlights the superior accuracy and robustness of BAC methods across various levels of theory and chemical species. In summary, while IDRs can provide valuable insights in certain scenarios, they are often limited by accuracy, species coverage, and sensitivity to constraint selection. Therefore, considering the overall performance, broader applicability, and user-friendliness, BAC methods emerge as the more advantageous choice for accurate thermochemical property correction and estimation. that can be found in the supporting information section.