Articles | Volume 23, issue 10
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-4323-2019
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-4323-2019
Technical note
 | 
25 Oct 2019
Technical note |  | 25 Oct 2019

Technical note: Inherent benchmark or not? Comparing Nash–Sutcliffe and Kling–Gupta efficiency scores

Wouter J. M. Knoben, Jim E. Freer, and Ross A. Woods

Viewed

Total article views: 30,109 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
18,161 11,692 256 30,109 1,564 412 398
  • HTML: 18,161
  • PDF: 11,692
  • XML: 256
  • Total: 30,109
  • Supplement: 1,564
  • BibTeX: 412
  • EndNote: 398
Views and downloads (calculated since 01 Jul 2019)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 01 Jul 2019)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 30,109 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 27,340 with geography defined and 2,769 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Saved (final revised paper)

Discussed (final revised paper)

Latest update: 22 Jul 2026
Download
Short summary
The accuracy of model simulations can be quantified with so-called efficiency metrics. The Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) has been often used in hydrology, but recently the Kling–Gupta efficiency (KGE) is gaining in popularity. We show that lessons learned about which NSE scores are acceptable do not necessarily translate well into understanding of the KGE metric.
Share