In general, recent SAMPL challenges highlight that accurately ranking host-guest binding free energies remains difficult. In addition, methods tend to fare better at identifying the tightest binder for each dataset, but methods tend to be unable to predict the weakest binder. When considering all predictions (ranked and non-ranked) in each dataset (WP6 and CD), methods performed better at ranking WP6 complexes by affinity opposed to CD. As measured by t, ranking ranged between 0.18 to 0.66 for WP6 and between -0.19 to 0.64 for CD. For WP6, 5 out of 12 (approximately 42%) methods achieved t values over 0.50, while 2 out of 10 (20%) for CD (see Table ). The top performing methods, as determined via MAE and RMSE, in each host category did not give the best t.