As shown in Figure , we observe pronounced differences amongst the predictions of the various DFAs. Starting with the box plots, we find that of the four functionals tested in this work, PBE generally predicts the lowest band gaps. Including HF exchange -as with HSE06 * and HSE06 -tends to increase the predicted band gap values, with the relative increase depending on the fraction of HF exchange in the selected functional. Qualitatively, the HSE06 * and HSE06 results are more reflective of prior experimental studies, which suggest that the majority of MOFs are electronically insulating and that comparatively few exhibit semi-conducting or metallic character. Switching focus to the HLE17 meta-GGA, we find that the median band gap value is within 0.09 eV of the HSE06 * calculations, suggesting that the parameterization of this functional can partially improve upon the band gap underprediction problem of PBE despite not incorporating HF exchange. When comparing the violin plots in Figure , it is immediately clear that the shape of the band gap distribution can vary significantly depending on the DFA. The PBE-computed band gap data exhibits two distinct distributions with peaks around 0.90 eV and 2.93 eV (Figure ), which is observed for the full QMOF Database of ~20,000 structures as well (Figure ). A qualitatively similar distribution of band gaps is obtained when using the HLE17 functional, which has peaks around 0.86 eV and 3.21 eV. However, the two distributions in the band gap data exhibit much more significant overlap for the HSE06 * functional, and for the HSE06 functional there is almost complete overlap such that the overall distribution is virtually unimodal.