Their simulation protocols are identical, including the database of MOF candidates. To rank the performance of materials, both groups use pressure swing adsorption (PSA) process modelling, with an identical process configuration and parameters. They both operate under the assumption that the results obtained using their workflows can be used to inform experimentalists on which MOFs to synthesise and test. The only difference between the groups is the choice of force fields used to describe intermolecular interactions, which are required by molecular simulations to generate equilibrium adsorption data. In this article, we question whether the rankings produced by the two groups, and therefore the final recommendations of their screening studies, will be similar and to what extent.