1. Overview

The article proposes using Terrestrial Water Storage Anomalies (TWSA) from GRACE missions to independently evaluate precipitation products, specifically GPCC and GPCP, since traditional methods rely on gauge data used in the products' creation. By calculating Drought Recovery Times (DRT) with TWSA alone and combined with precipitation data, the authors aim to provide a more robust assessment of the alignment between precipitation products and TWSA.

2. Major comments

Throughout the article, I encountered many interesting results, but the core scientific analysis was lacking. It was unclear what these findings reveal, how they answer the research question, or how the new method clarifies the strengths and weaknesses of the precipitation products. Specifically, there is no discussion of contexts in which one product outperforms the other, nor an exploration of why this might be.

Additionally, the research question itself is not well-defined. While the abstract claims the goal is to evaluate precipitation products using TWSA data to calculate DRT, the paper sometimes shifts focus to evaluating TWSA products or comparing which precipitation/TWSA combination best estimates DRT.

To address this, I recommend: 1) clearly defining the research question in the introduction and maintaining alignment throughout, and 2) adding a discussion section (included in or separate from the " results " section) to interpret the results in light of the research question.

3. Minor comments

Abstract: Consider simplifying the abstract by emphasizing the key findings, rather than delving into specific details. This will help focus the reader's attention on the main outcomes without overwhelming them with too much information.

Line 28: You present the consistency results without explaining what they entail. Providing context here will help the reader understand the significance of these results.

Line 178: The detrending process would benefit from more explanation. Please consider adding details on the method used, along with a relevant reference.

Line 287: You describe the correlations over Australia (0.55), South America (0.46), and South Africa (ρ > 0.47) as “high.” Please clarify the criteria or thresholds you used to define these correlations as high.

Line 298: The text references Figures 2c and 2d, but these should be Figures 2b and 2d. Please adjust for accuracy.

The study is well-organized and innovative, with its originality stemming from the use of GRACE and GRACE-FO terrestrial water storage (TWS) data as an independent approach for evaluating the accuracy of precipitation products. The authors computed Drought Recovery Times (DRT) from Total Water Storage Anomaly (TWSA) data using two different approaches. The first approach, referred to as the "storage deficit" method, relies solely on TWSA data, while the second, the "required precipitation amount" method, integrates TWSA with precipitation data. Two TWSA products, JPL and G3P, were utilized for these calculations. Additionally, the authors evaluated the discrepancies in DRT results between the two TWSA products. I have only a few minor comments for the authors may consider:

Minor Comments:

-Line 285 : Which correlation method did you use, Can you please name it? (e.g. Pearson’s correlation)

-Line 298 : Please verify the figure numbers, as they might need to be labeled as 2b and 2d

-The paper uses numerous abbreviations and technical terms, so it is recommended to include a glossary of full forms for the abbreviations after the conclusion.

Overall, this research is well-structured and presents a state-of-the-art contribution to hydrology by highlighting the potential of GRACE and GRACE-FO data in evaluating precipitation products and drought characteristics. Addressing the minor comments provided will further strengthen the manuscript's impact.