Method performance on the CD dataset is shown in Figure . Partly because of the narrow range of experimental binding free energies, we observe little difference in performance between the two better performing ranked methods. The third ranked submission AM1-BCC/MD/GAFF/TIP4PEW/QMMM method was not included in these plots because the range of binding free energies is so dramatically overestimated (Figure ) that including it in the graph makes performance of the other two methods appear identical. In this analysis, optional systems bCD-g1 and bCD-g2 are not included, since these free energies have been previously reported. Of the two better performing techniques here (FSDAM/GAFF2/OPC3 and Noneq/Alchemy/consensus), performance was remarkably similar, as were the nonequilibrium free energy techniques employed. The third method -which typically predicted binding to be far too strong -was the AM1-BC/MD/GAFF/TIP4PEW/QMMM method, which had a ME and slope of 31.27 kcal/mol and 7.62 respectively. Since the GAFF force field is shared between this method and one of the more successful methods, it seems likely the larger error in this case is due to the QM/MM energy calculation approach.