The performance of SCAN is considerably worse in the context of STM than it was for ∆SCF, and although GSTM improves the situation (as expected), its performance in conjunction with SCAN remains inferior to that of various hybrid and LRC functionals. In fact, the smallest STM errors are obtained using HF theory, suggesting issues with delocalization error, although the SCAN0 functional offers only a modest improvement upon SCAN results and errors for STM-SCAN0 remain large (MAE = 2.25 eV). The situation is quite different for the GSTM approach, however. Whereas the HF errors are virtually unchanged with respect to the corresponding STM results, both SCAN and the various hybrid functionals improve significantly, so that the accuracy of GSTM-SCAN is on par with that of HF theory whereas results with hybrid functionals are improved relative to HF theory, except in the case of the two LRC functionals. Although errors for the F(1s) subset defy some of these trends, we do not put much weight on that observation given that the CORE65 data set contains only three data points for fluorine.