The hybrid physical/ANN approach "EspalomaCharge" yields only mediocre accuracy on the test data with a significantly lower Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) of about 0.79 compared to 0.96 with both versions of the CEH model. In part, this can be attributed to the different targets of emulating AM1-BCC and not Hirshfeld 76 charges. However, Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (SRCC), which should be less susceptible to absolute errors or shifts, is also lower by a similar degree (0.74 vs 0.90). Furthermore, EspalomaCharge yields 87 outliers excluded from the statistical analysis and the plot, while CEH-v2 led to only one outlier. In contrast, the SQM methods GFN1-(purple) and GFN2-xTB (red) exhibit results comparable to CEH-v2. While the CEH-v2 mean absolute error (MAE) and RMSE are lower by a factor of about two to three compared to the xTB methods, the SRCC is slightly closer to unity for both GFN1-and GFN2-xTB. This aligns with the difference in construction between xTB and CEH: The self-consistent xTB charges lead to more consistent trends, while CEH yields lower absolute errors due to the direct fit on Hirshfeld charges. An observation that holds for all compared methods (yet less pronounced for GFN2-xTB) is the overestimation of absolute charges (for both positive and negative charges) compared to the DFT Hirshfeld charges, which is largely the reason for the higher absolute errors. However, this might also be due to the differences in charge partitioning, as xTB provides Mulliken charges which are generally larger than Hirshfeld charges.