To elucidate the results, the dissociation curve profiles for all methods are presented in Fig. of the SI in aggregate and individually in Fig. of the SI. Interestingly, unlike DFT methods, AMBER-GAFF2 either underestimates or overestimates E int , depending on the dimer configuration. The discrepancies are more pronounced in configurations where dispersion components dominate the NCI, and for those dimers particularly at distances with factor q < 1.0, where dispersion interactions are stronger. On the other hand, both SE methods predominantly underestimate E int and fail to accurately capture the position of the minimum on the dissociation curve or its overall shape. This behavior changes only for GFN2-xTB at q < 1.0, where it overestimates E int in most cases. Hence, to assess the efficiency of the methods in different interaction regimes, two ranges have been defined: compressed for q ≤ 1.0 and elongated for q > 1.0.