Seen clearly in Figure , E disp and E Pauli are mostly underestimated quantities, with the exception of Amber99 dispersion. However, electrostatics, as previously discussed, neglect electron overlap and hence neglect some electrostatic attraction via the use of point-like multipoles. In order to maintain an accurate interaction energy, each of these three terms must sum to (mostly) the same frozen component since induction effects are small. As such, the neglect of charge penetration effects also play a role when looking at Pauli repulsion and dispersion, as the neglect of this interaction inevitably must be compensated through the remaining frozen interactions. This phenomena can also be somewhat seen in the hydrogen bonded complexes, albeit we would stress that induced dipole -induced dipole effects can be modeled by both dispersion and explicit polarization interactions, and decomposing these two effects is not entirely possible. Still, there is a clear underestimation of E Pauli that is not completely canceled by either Drude-2017 or AMOEBA polarization alone. that much more underestimated than AMOEBA (median RE=12.3%) or AmberFD (median RE=25.2%) are overestimated. Triplets also share a similar pattern, with the deviations from zero being slightly extended in both directions. The range of differences, however, are much smaller for the AMOEBA force field then either AmberFD or Drude. Angle deflection, defined as the angle between the DFT and the FF dipoles, is also mostly minimized for AMOEBA with a median less than 10 • for both H-bonded pairs and triplets, but the largest for AmberFD and Drude-2017. These dipole results, when combined to the accurate reproduction of molecular polarizabilities by AMOEBA, suggest that directional depended induction parameters (α ij and frozen multipoles) still play a critical role in producing correct responses from other nucleobases. One issue with using energetics alone to analyze polarizable force fields is that each model presented here produces an induction response that is dependent on how they represent frozen electrostatics or formulate polarization itself. In an attempt to compare each force field's ability to respond to external fields on equal footing, we computed molecular polarizabilities α ij and dipole moments µ i of the 4 RNA nucleobases using constant electric fields. These results are compared against DFT computed tensors where we assume that the anisotropic components of α ij are negligible. For DFT, AmberFD, and Drude models, we computed a component of α ij by perturbing the molecules with constant electric fields in magnitudes from -0.015 to 0.015 a.u. in increments of 0.0025 a.u. and performed a quadratic polynomial fit to energies resulting from each perturbation. As a Buckingham expansion up to second order in a constant electric field ϵ i can be written as