Equation ( ) is an alternative expression for the CDFT chemical potential. However, we stress that χ I and η T are only approximations to the CDFT electronegativity and chemical hardness. With this consideration in mind, we can point to term-by-term analogies between our EQC-derived eq. ( ) and eq. ( ). In both equations, the first term corresponds to electronegativity and the second term relates to chemical hardness (although in eq. ( ), the second term also contains the number of valence electrons). The last term of both equations relates to changes in the electron-electron interactions: one of the principal components of the universal functional F[ρ] is the electron repulsion energy, as stated by Parr. One noticeable difference between the EQC chemical potential, eq. ( ), and the CDFT chemical potential, eq. ( ), is that the former includes a term accounting explicitly for the role of core electrons. We stress that these analogies should only be considered qualitative in nature. Because the definition of electronegativity and hardness differs between the EQC and CDFT frameworks, there is no formal correspondence between the right-hand side terms of Eq. ( ) and ( ). However, the chemical potential links the two equations, and we note that both definitions of electronegativity and hardness provide values of comparable magnitude (see Table