• LDA: SPW92 • GGA: B97-D , MPW91 , PBE , BLYP , N12 • mGGA: B97M-V , mBEEF , M06-L , revM06-L , MN15-L , revTPSS , TPSS • hybrid GGA: ωB97X-D , CAM-B3LYP , ωB97X-V , SOGGA11-X , LRC-wPBE , LRC-wPBEh , MPW1K , PBE0 , HSEHJS , rcamB3LYP , MPW1PW91 , BHHLYP , PBE50 , B3LYP , HFLYP • hybrid mGGA: BMK , M06-SX , M06-2X , ωB97M-V , wM05-D , MN15 , PW6B95 , SCAN0 , M11 , revTPSSh , TPSSh , MN12-SX The very large number of molecules and calculations required (21238 molecules and 828282 single points), forced us to some notable, but necessary, approximations. We used as a reference method the second order Algebraic Diagrammatic Construction (ADC( )) scheme of the polarization propagator and a triple zeta basis set (def2-TZVP) , calculating the first five singlet excitations. Calculating five singlets ensures to cover the first absorption band and eventual dark states present in the UV/Vis region. However, our scoring system is not intended to provide the closest energy value to the experimental results, but only the strongest similarity between the TD-DFT and the reference calculations. The scoring for each functional in this section indicates the similarity only with respect to the five lowest singlet states, at one specific geometry, obtained with a more accurate method as ADC(2), which still carries its own limitation being a single reference method, in the gas phase. All the details of the quantum chemical calculations are reported in Section 7. We can analyze the distribution of the scores for each functional along the dataset, as well as how many times a functional is the top performer, and identify trends in the performances (Figure ). A group of functionals seems to be the more frequently the top performer, namely rcamB3LYP, ωB97X-V, PBE50, and BHHLYP. Together they perform the best on over 60% of the molecules. These functionals are also the ones more frequent with a score above 80 and 75, and in almost half of the dataset (total number of molecules considered is 21228) they have a score bigger than 60, a lower bound value that we recommend as a threshold for a functional to be considered for benchmarking, since it would be derived by an average error of 0.3 on the overlap of the states and a 0.2 eV with a comparable TDM (see section 5 for details in the interpretation of the scoring system). Despite the approximations used, the scores and the trends obtained are in line with the recommendations obtained with the latest and more accurate functionals benchmarks . Some of these functionals can perform similarly or very differently for different molecules and these data only show the general trend of the scoring along the dataset.