In order to show how the performance of Mogrify compares with that of other published methods for retrieving sets of TFs for cell conversions, two statistics are reported. First (top), the recovery rate of each of the techniques. A recovery rate of 100% means that the technique also found all of the sets of TFs that were used in the published conversion. As a result, if that technique had been used to design the experiment, then the known conversion set would have been discovered in the first iteration. For Mogrify, this is the case for six of ten of the published conversions; for CellNet and D’Allessio et al., this is only true for one of ten of the published conversions. Second (bottom), the average rank of the recovered TFs is plotted. Ignoring TFs that were missed by each of the techniques, this test shows how well each technique managed to prioritize the required TFs. With the exception of the conversion between fibroblasts and heart (cardiomyocytes), Mogrify performed the best in every case. In the case where none of the correct TFs were predicted, no average rank is shown. This is the case for four conversions in CellNet and one conversion for D’Alessio et al.