<div dir="ltr">Hi Tommaso as you I am more expert on QE and only recently moved on CP2K. On my experience CP2K is much more quicker and allows to work with bigger systems that planewave code could not afford. On the other hand it is true that this is really system depended so the fact that for nano-porous material CP2K is more efficient could not be true for other systems. After having read the inputs a comment I can give to you is that you are probably not making a fair comparison. I've see you use ultrasoft pseudo which allows a very low cut-off and can be "though" as minimal basis-set. So you should probably use some corresponding low basis-set in CP2K (for instance a dobule zera instead of triple zeta). Probably more important another thing I can tell you is that I've seen that if CP2K is not properly compiled, its performance can be slow. For instance my own version with mpi, mkl, libxsmm and elpa is about 30% faster than the standard one I found on our cluster. Moreover the speediness of the code can be further boosted if you use also GPU and hybrid openMP-MPI. P.S. a curiosity, in QE why are you using a single point shifted from gamma? if there is not a major reason using the gamma algorithm on QE can accelerate you calc up to 30% </div>