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: 29,386 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
17,759 11,380 247 29,386 1,557 399 387
  • HTML: 17,759
  • PDF: 11,380
  • XML: 247
  • Total: 29,386
  • Supplement: 1,557
  • BibTeX: 399
  • EndNote: 387
Views and downloads (calculated since 01 Jul 2019)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 01 Jul 2019)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 29,386 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 26,724 with geography defined and 2,662 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Saved (final revised paper)

Discussed (final revised paper)

Latest update: 16 May 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