We argue from both technical and physical points of view that the main result shown in the Comment by Cherrolet et al. ͓Phys. Rev. B 80, 037101 ͑2009͔͒ as well as the authors' interpretations of the result are not sufficient to draw the conclusion that the scaling law at the mobility edge takes the form T ϰ 1 / L 2 . On the other hand, we believe that the result shows some evidence of T ϰ ln L / L 2 behavior found in S. K. Cheung and Z. Q. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B 72, 235102 ͑2005͒. More calculations with even larger L's are necessary to give a more definitive answer to this question. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.80.037102 PACS number͑s͒: 42.25.Dd, 42.25.Bs, 72.15.Rn, 72.20.Ee In the preceding Comment ͑Ref. 1͒ on our paper ͑Ref. 2͒, the authors fit their Eq. ͑1͒ to the average transmission coefficient, T͑L͒, of disordered slabs at the localization transition calculated by the self-consistent ͑SC͒ theory with a positiondependent diffusion constant, D͑z͒ ͑Ref. 3͒, in a range of slab thicknesses from L =10 2 l to 8 ϫ 10 3 l. Since deviations of the fit from the numerical results do not exceed 3% and Eq. ͑1͒ gives rise to T ϰ ͑l / L͒ 2 behavior at large L's, they conclude that the T ϰ ͑l / L͒ 2 ln͑L / l͒ behavior we obtained in Ref. 2 was an artifact of replacing D͑z͒ with its harmonic mean. We would like to state here that Fig. 1 in the Comment as well as the authors' interpretations of this figure are not sufficient to draw a definitive conclusion about the scaling behavior of T͑L͒. Our reply is based on both technical and physical points of view.On the technical side, we question the consistency and robustness in the determination of the parameter, z c = 4.2l, in the assumed function, D͑z͒ = D͑0͒ / ͑1+z / z c ͒ where z = min͑z , L − z͒. In the Comment, the value of z c is determined from the fitting of Eq. ͑1͒ to the numerical transmission result, T͑L͒. Would z c be different if the fitting were done against the D͑z͒ obtained from the SC calculation? There are two reasons for us to raise this question. First, the value of z c = 1.5l shown in the Table of Ref. 3 is very different from that found in the Comment. Second, in a standard form of T, the numerator in Eq. ͑8͒ of Ref. 3 takes the form l + z 0 ͑Ref. 4͒, where the term l represents the penetration length and, therefore, the numerator of Eq. ͑1͒ should be replaced by 4͑z c / l͒͑1+z 0 / l͒ ͓D͑0͒ / D B ͔. If we use this expression to fit T͑L͒, a different value of z c will be found. Thus, the claim of a good fit to within 3% might be ambiguous.From the physical point of view, we argue that the critical behavior of T͑L͒ should be the large-L behavior of T. If T ϰ ͑l / L͒ 2 were the correct critical behavior as concluded in the Comment, the critical region of interest should be for L Ͼ 1000l, beyond which T͑L͒͑L / l͒ 2 approaches a constant. However, such constant behavior is only seen in the region of 1000Ͻ L / l Ͻ 3000, which represents less than a decade of data points. T͑L͒͑L / l͒ 2 turns into an increasing function of L for 3000Ͻ L / l Ͻ 8000, which indicates an ove...