Fields calculated with the additive models were systematically larger (more negative) than those of AMOEBA and showed a broader distribution (Fig. ). Distributions with Amber and Charmm force fields were remarkably similar, although slightly larger fields were calculated with the Charmm partial charges (𝑥̅ = -41.0 MV cm -1 ) compared to Amber (𝑥̅ = -37.0 MV cm -1 ). To investigate whether the force field used to create the structural ensemble biased the calculated fields, we generated an alternative structural ensemble of the same system with the Amber ff14SB force field. This ensemble showed analogous results, with a very broad distribution of Amber field strengths centered at -40.9 MV cm -1 , and a comparatively tight AMOEBA distribution centered at -18.2 MV cm -1 (Fig. ). Therefore, the differences observed between the fields calculated with additive and polarizable models were not simply caused by the structural ensemble generated with the AMOEBA force field. Instead, the broader distribution of field strengths observed with Amber & Charmm supports the notion that an additive Coulombic electrostatics model is more sensitive to the instantaneous environmental conformations than the AMOEBA polarizable model.