The manuscript has received two reviews, both of which note that that although some findings of the work are not particularly novel, the paper has a clear and important contribution to the literature and is worthy of publication.

The reviewers bring up a number of interesting and helpful comments to consider in the revision, particularly with respect to limitations, and the authors proposed responses show that they have considered these comments in the context of how the manuscript will be revised accordingly. Since these comments are relatively minor, I now ask the authors to incorporate their proposed changes and submit their revised manuscript for final review by the Editor.

I have reviewed the revised manuscript and the final responses from the authors to the review comments. I find that the authors have sufficiently responded and revised the manuscript according to the reviewer comments. I especially appreciate the addition of the limitations section (Section 3.7) and Figure 8.

I would request an additional proof-read by the authors to smooth over any few remaining grammatical issues and check for compliance with HESS guidelines.

For example:

- In section 3.7, I noticed that the following sentence does not appear to be a complete sentence: "For example, comparing the Lisflood and CaMa-Flood routing models by
5 evaluating several runs which use a greater variety of precipitation products (e.g. MSWEP, CHIRP V2.0, ERA-5, TRMM v.7 amongst others) to force each model."

- Tables and figures should generally be stand-alone according to HESS guidelines. Please consider spelling out as many abbreviations as possible in the figure and table captions. I know there are a large number of abbreviations in the figures but I do think the manuscript would benefit from them being more stand-alone.