Following our previous work focussing on compounds containing up to 3 non-hydrogen atoms [J. Chem. Theory Comput. 14 (2018) [4360][4361][4362][4363][4364][4365][4366][4367][4368][4369][4370][4371][4372][4373][4374][4375][4376][4377][4378][4379], we present here highly-accurate vertical transition energies obtained for 27 molecules encompassing 4, 5, and 6 non-hydrogen atoms: equation-of-motion coupled cluster theory up to the highest technically possible excitation order for these systems (CC3, EOM-CCSDT, and EOM-CCSDTQ), selected configuration interaction 1 arXiv:1912.04173v2 [physics.chem-ph] 31 Jan 2020 (SCI) calculations (with tens of millions of determinants in the reference space), as well as the multiconfigurational n-electron valence state perturbation theory (NEVPT2) method. All these approaches are applied in combination with diffuse-containing atomic basis sets. For all transitions, we report at least CC3/aug-cc-pVQZ vertical excitation energies as well as CC3/aug-cc-pVTZ oscillator strengths for each dipole-allowed transition. We show that CC3 almost systematically delivers transition energies in agreement with higher-level methods with a typical deviation of ±0.04 eV, except for transitions with a dominant double excitation character where the error is much larger. The present contribution gathers a large, diverse and accurate set of more than 200 highly-accurate transition energies for states of various natures (valence, Rydberg, singlet, triplet, n → π , π → π , . . . ). We use this series of theoretical best estimates to benchmark a series of popular methods for excited state calculations: CIS(D), ADC(2), CC2, STEOM-CCSD, EOM-CCSD, CCSDR(3), CCSDT-3, CC3, as well as NEVPT2. The results of these benchmarks are compared to the available literature data.Although these conclusions agree well with earlier studies, 69-71 they obviously only hold for single excitations, i.e., transitions with %T 1 in the 80-100% range. Therefore, we also recently proposed a set of 20 TBE for transitions exhibiting a significant double-excitation character (i.e., with %T 1 typically below 80%). 72 Unsurprisingly, our results clearly evidenced that the error in CC methods is intimately related to the %T 1 value. For example, for the ES with a significant yet not dominant double excitation character [such as the infamous A g ES of butadiene (%T 1 = 75%)] CC methods including triples deliver rather accurate estimates (MAE of 0.11 eV with CC3 and 0.06 eV with CCSDT), surprisingly outperforming second-order multi-reference schemes such as CASPT2 or the generally robust n-electron valence state perturbation theory (NEVPT2). In contrast, for ES with a dominant double excitation character, e.g., the low-lying (n, n) → (π , π ) excitation in nitrosomethane (%T 1 = 2%), single-reference methods (not including quadruples) have been found to be unsuitable with MAEs of 0.86 and 0.42 eV for CC3 and CCSDT, respectively. In this case, multiconfigurational methods are in practice required to obtain accurate results. 72 A clear limit of ...