is almost identical for C:G and G:U base pairs at all distances, and only minor differences in A:U pairing is observed. Much of this agreement between the two profiles can be attributed to the exponential decay of Slater frozen densities in Equation 3, as it resembles the average curvature of the QM molecular density. Profiles along the orthogonal directions, either laterally to the H-bond direction (ŷ) or out of the plane of the bases (ẑ), are also in good agreement, with G:U having only minor differences in it's perpendicular energy minimums compared to the DFT energies. Stacking results (Figure ) are also acceptable, albeit not as good as the hydrogen bond profiles. The magnitude of the electrostatic contributions are much smaller for stacked geometries, and so while their deviation may be relatively large compared to QM energies, the actual magnitudes of their deviations are comparable to those from the H-bonded profiles. For example, H-bonded G:U and stacked U:U at their equilibrium distances differ from the QM energy by 7.64 and 8.01 kJ/mol, respectively, yet the ranges in the profiles explored here are vastly different between H-bonding (ranging from -300 to -50 kJ/mol) and stacking (-25 to 20 kJ/mol).