One of the main strategies to reduce countries’ energy bills is to invest in efficient buildings. To achieve this objective, the European Union Member States have developed different methodologies to evaluate building energy performance, which are often supported by simulation tools. These tools are based on calculation engines that use databases and simplifications to attempt to bring their results close to real building performance and are mostly designed to be used at the end of the process, neglecting their role in project decision-making processes. To compensate for this situation and to obtain the most accurate results, the methodologies recommend previous work during the building design phase to adopt passive design solutions that learn from experience and aim to adapt the building design to the local climate. However, these design solutions are difficult to adopt while working with medium to large public buildings and are often not properly understood by the simulation tools. In addition, new BIM methodologies are being implemented, starting to enable proper interaction between the designer and the results, and opening up the option of introducing other types of calculations, such as building comfort, in the calculation process. Among the group of countries with limited simulation tools that are starting to be substituted is Spain, which recently launched its first BIM-based energy simulation tool. This tool aims to compensate for the limitations of the former simulation tools and opens up the option of performing comfort calculations by sharing information with other programs. The objective of this research is to evaluate, from different perspectives, the performance of this new simulation tool on three buildings at the University of Alicante. These were chosen as university campuses are responsible for large groups of buildings and belong to the group of stakeholders interested in obtaining efficient and comfortable buildings. These case studies are defined by their extreme adaptation to design recommendations for mild-warm weather. At the end of the process, the difference is measured between simulation and real building performance. The results obtained show that simulation still differs greatly from real building performance from the energy performance point of view, while the comfort evaluation shows results that are closer to the reality of the buildings.