## 4 Conclusions  
To our knowledge, this is the first study that objectively evaluates the performance of GPP across the entire Caribbean. We evaluated the strengths and weaknesses of sixteen gridded monthly precipitation products for the period 1983-2010, by comparing them to 60 weather stations across the Caribbean. The evaluation was limited to 28-year period due to data availability and data quality. The evaluation was carried out by analyzing the differences in the representation of the rainfall annual cycle and by employing different statistical metrics such as the KGE as well as others derived from SPIs which characterize various features for drought and pluvial conditions. We summarize the main findings of this work as follows:  
1. With respect to the applied methodological approach, we conclude that: * The combined analysis of the annual precipitation cycle and KGE and SPI metrics, provide a robust and comprehensive understanding of the performance of the considered precipitation products for the Caribbean. While the comparison of the annual precipitation cycles between GPP and observations provided useful preliminary information about the best and worst GPP, the KGE index added a global and objective picture of the GPP abilities by integrating correlation, bias, and variability. At the same time, SPIs gave insights about the GPP skill with respect to other important features of precipitation. For instance, ERA5 was the worst reanalysis product in representing the annual precipitation cycle for the Caribbean, underestimating the total monthly precipitation. However, it performed better than other GPP in the SPI analysis, mainly because of its higher correlation with observations. Similarly, GPP, such as CHELSA or TERRACLIMATE, were among the best for some individual performance indicators (e.g., DF and DE statistics) but did not show similar ability in other ones (e.g., SPIAA moderate and severe (Figure 8b,c)). 2. With respect to the annual cycle analysis, we conclude that: * The analysis of the annual precipitation cycle revealed a high correspondence between GPP and observations across the Caribbean as whole, as well as for the two sub-regions analysed. Features such as the MSD and the maximum of rainfall during November were well represented for the Western and Eastern sub-regions respectively. There was a better performance for the majority of the GPP over the Western Caribbean when compared with the eastern side. This might either be due to the low station density used in the development of these GPP, especially over the Eastern Caribbean, or the inability of the reanalysis products to properly represent the small territories and the precipitation processes that happen on these small land areas. Considering this analysis, we suggest that the best performing products for the whole Caribbean and the sub-regions were the gauge-based GPCC025 and GPCC05 and the gauge and satellite-based CHIRPS. With respect to the evaluation based on the KGE index we highlight the following:  
* Although correlation has a strong influence in the KGE scoring, it was the worst component captured by the GPP. We suggest that for further improvement or development of GPP for use in the Caribbean, improving correlation should be a primary goal. * Generally speaking, the reanalysis products were among the lowest-performing GPP group, although some of them performed better than PERSIANCDR (gauge and satellite) and CPCGLOBAL (gauge, satellite, and reanalysis). The lower representativeness of reanalysis suggests deficiencies of atmospheric models to reproduce the small-scale precipitation processes. In this group, ERA5 had the best performance, despite its significant precipitation underestimation. This result calls the attention of the potential users of ERA5 to develop new regional precipitation products by using bias correction or downscaling techniques. * On the basis of the KGE analysis, GPCC025, GPCC05, MSWEP, and MSWEP2 yielded better results for both annual and seasonal time scales.