This paper presents an interesting comparison of regionalization methods for rainfall frequency analysis. It is based on a large sample of 1176 daily stations in Switzerland and its neighbouring countries. Five models have been compared, based on local data (local EGPD) or regional data (Omega EGPD with an average shape parameter; ROI EGPD Full or Semi with ROI approach; GAM EGPD with parameters depending on covariates). The paper gives confirmation on the interest of regional approach vs local approach, and concludes that the GAM model is better for the upper tail, and the ROI model for the bulk of the distribution.

The paper is clear and well written. I have one requirement on additional simulation and three minor recommendations.

The authors decided to use a EGPD distribution, with the advantage of representing both the bulk of the distribution and the upper tail. As the conclusion is that no model is the best on the whole part of the distribution, I would be interested to see whether a GP-ROI distribution-regional approach performs on the upper tail, compared with a GAM EGPD model.

Section 3.2

Line 152. The first time, explain PAM acronym (Partitioning around medoids)

Section 5.2

Figure 3 - Histogram. It could be interesting to add (for each class of radius) the mean number of stations belonging to the ROI

Section 5.4

Line 420. “The plot of the right of Figure 5”

General comments: The manuscript gives a nice overview of state-of-the-art methods for regionalization of precipitation, with a clear aim of comparing and evaluating these methods. Comparison strategy and evaluation criteria seem adequate and the different methods' strengths and drawbacks are well presented. The manuscript would however benefit from a clearer structure (especially of Chapter 3) and a more consise language (see below). 

Specific comments: 

Chapter 1 Introduction: It could be stated more clearly what potential practical uses and benefits of such methods are, besides "modeling the whole range of positive precipiation"

Chapter 2: Could you please comment on the histogram in Figure 1; why the large number of stations in Switzerland in 1900-09 for instance?

Chapter 3: It is unclear what the difference is between "methods of regionalization" and "regional models". I would prefer moving Table 1, and maybe the whole chapter 3.5 to the beginning, as an introduction to the models, and then describe details in the sub-chapters.  Also consider adding a column to Table 1, naming the section where the model is described. You could also mark clearly in the text whenever one of the 5 models is described/introduced, since only number 5 has its own sub-chapter. I believe repetition, for instance in the summary at the end of chapter 3.2 and chapter 3.3, is a bit confusing. Could you rather base your description on the steps of the summary? 

Chapter 5:  The first five paraprahs (lines 337 - 356)  describe the method and should be moved to a previous chapter. Would you please comment on the seasonal differences in Figure 3 (chapter 5.2). 

Technical corrections: There are several examples of unclear language and wordy sentences. I have listed the most obvious ones below, but I recommend a full language review.

L1: performances --> performance

L15: "these events" points back to the previous sentence, where you also write "these events". Please specify which events you are referring to.

L19: Missing a comma after "signal".

L28: What does "This" refer to?

L43: Remove quotation marks around "regional".

L58: Remove "though".

L68: Add commas after "authors" and after "study".

L72: "... also using GEV compared the ..." --> "... also used GEV to compare the..."

L78: "...we consider a model, the EGDP ..." --> "...we consider the EGDP model ..."

L81: Remove "by".

L93: Remove "by". "recorded at" --> "from".

L96: Add "While" before "the main study area...".

L98: "the whole" --> "all".

L102: Please rephrase “It is also marked by…”.

L104: Please rephrase “The Ticino stands generally as the…”.

L107: Please rephrase. “necessitates…” does not follow from “Resulting from…”.

L115. Should it be “precipitation”, not “rainfall”?

L117: Please define “positive precipitation”. Non-zero?

L118: Remove “though”.

L256: Remove “method”.

L405: Remove “for this model”.

L420: Add “Figure” before “5”.

L427: Please rephrase. For instance “In Figure 6 we also show the 100-year return level…”.

L429: Remove “in comparison to the other regions”. It is intuitive.

L430: Remove “in comparison to the other seasons”.

L441: Suggest to rephrase to “We based our comparison on criteria that measure …”.

L449: “estimate” --> “estimation”.

L471: Remove the first “Of”.