Hydrology and Earth System Sciences
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences
HESS
Articles | Volume 23, issue 10
Articles | Volume 23, issue 10
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-4323-2019
© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-4323-2019
© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Articles | Volume 23, issue 10
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: 26,449 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
15,986 10,280 183 26,449 1,472 325 313
  • HTML: 15,986
  • PDF: 10,280
  • XML: 183
  • Total: 26,449
  • Supplement: 1,472
  • BibTeX: 325
  • EndNote: 313
Views and downloads (calculated since 01 Jul 2019)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 01 Jul 2019)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 26,449 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 23,851 with geography defined and 2,598 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 24 Nov 2025
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.
Read more
Share