Dear Dr Beck and co-authors,

Thank you for your comprehensive replies to the comments and questions raised by reviewers and other readers. The replies to the issues raised are adequate and the changes that were implemented help to further improve the quality of the paper. Including the analysis of performance of the winter and summer seasons, provides some interesting insights and are a valuable addition to the paper.
The issue of representativeness of the KGE performance metric was raised by several reviewers and your replies adequately address their concerns. In particular, referring to the presentation of the three separate KGE components in the paper. Still, assessment of extremes as in the tail of the statistical distribution, is not well captured by correlation or second-order variability scores, especially for strongly skewed distributions as is the case of precipitation. In the context of the current discussions on climate adaptation, where recommendations provided by the paper may find practical application, it is important that the distinction between mean and 2nd order variability versus extreme values (e.g. 90,95,99th percentiles) be made. Please address this explicitly in the discussion and conclusions.
A minor point: While the scales at which the rainfall products are evaluated are explicitly mentioned already in the Abstract and Data&Methods section, I suggest to do so in the Conclusions section as well (daily is stated, add spatial scale 4 km).
Finally, please provide a revised version of the manuscript that marks the revision changes.