Table 4. Participant ranking by Target performance.

For each target only the best quality solution is counted; in total 25 targets were assessed. Column 2 indicates the number of targets for which predictions were submitted. In Column 3, the numbers without stars indicate models of acceptable quality or better, and the numbers with ‘**’ indicate the number of those models that were of medium quality.

Participant	Participated targets		Performance
CAPRI Predictor Ranking
Seok		25	15/14**
Huang		25	16/13**
Guerois		25	16/12**
Zou		25	14/11**
Shen		25	13/11**
Grudinin		24	11/10**
Weng		25	13/9**
Vakser		25	11/9**
Vajda/Kozakov		24	15/8**
Fernandez-Recio		25	11/8**
Lee		20	10/7**
Tomii		20	8/6**
Sali		12	6/4**
Negi		25	7/3**
Eisenstein		6	3**
Bates		25	7/2**
Kihara		23	7/2**
Zhou		25	4/2**
Tovchigrechko		12	3/1**
Ritchie		8	2/1**
Fernandez-Fuentes		14	1
Xiao		11	1
Gong		8	0
Del Carpio		3	0
Wade		2	0
Haliloglu		1	0
CAPRI SERVER Ranking
HADDOCK		25	16/9**
CLUSPRO		25	16/8**
SWARMDOCK		25	11/4**
GRAMM-X		22	6/1**
LZERD		25	3
DOCK/PIERR		2	1
CAPRI Scorer Ranking
Bonvin		25	18/14**
Bates		24	17/13**
Huang, Seok		25	16/13**
Zou, Kihara		25	15/12**
Fernandez-Recio		25	14/12**
Weng		25	16/11**
Oliva		22	14/11**
Grudinin		25	13/10**
Gray		17	10/7**
LZERD		25	6**
Lee		5	3/2**
Sali		1	0
CASP Predictor and Server Ranking
Umeyama		19	13/8**
ROSETTASERVER		13	9/8**
Dunbrack		12	11/6**
SEOK_SERVER		22	7/5**
Luethy		8	5/4**
Nakamura		12	7/3**
Baker		8	3**
Wallner		2	1**
Skwark, Lee, RAPTOR-X_Wang, NNS_Lee		1–4	1
39 participants not listed		1–5	0