Adiabatic excitation energies, defined as the energy difference between lowest vibrational levels of the relaxed ground-and excited-state energies, are often benchmarked to assess ES methods. In contrast to vertical excitation energies, adiabatic excitations have the advantage of being experimentally observable and less structure sensitive. They show not a linear, but a quadratic dependence on nuclear displacements. The difference between calculated vertical and adiabatic excitation energy is the ES relaxation energy and fluorescence energies are defined as vertical de-excitation energies. The error in adiabatic excitation and fluorescence energies for the investigated 35 molecules is depicted in Figures and, each figure showing in its upper plot ADMM errors for different auxiliary basis set sizes and in the lower plot the performance of ADMM and sTDA kernels. The latter is assessed for adiabatic excitation energies with respect to EOM-CCSD reference data and for fluorescence energies with respect to the performed PBE0/def2-QZVPP/Turbomole computations. Despite the varying references, ADMM errors are comparable for both excitation and de-excitation process, ranging from -0.2 to 0.2 or 0.3 eV for the smallest dzp auxiliary basis. tzp and tz2p auxiliary basis sets reduce the maximum error to 0.1 or 0.12 eV, respectively. Corresponding MDs are of meV magnitude and MADs smaller than 0.03 eV. Analysing the different kernels in the lower plots highlights that sTDA errors are consistently shifted to either smaller or more negative errors. The correlation between the relative shift of sTDA errors with respect to both PBE0 and EOM-CCSD results and the considered amount of exact exchange was not investigated any further, but will be part of future work. However, even when choosing a non-optimized fraction of 0.2 for the coupling parameter a EX of Eq. 29, sTDA curves are close to the hybrid functional results achieving statistical measures of the same order of magnitude, with MDs of 0.2 / 0.