We thank Referee #1 for the comments. Our point by point answers to the comments are presented below (bolded and marked with R).

General remark:

• The paper contains a lot of information and sometimes it is a bit challenging to follow, but this is mainly due to the variety of metrics and data sets used in this study.
• I recommend to accept the paper, if the ambiguous formulation mentioned under specific comment is taken care of.

R: We acknowledge that the various metrics and datasets can be difficult to follow, but we see that each metric and dataset is relevant for this study, and thus, we prefer to keep them as is. However, we have emphasized the use of various datasets in the abstract:

“The HCLIM simulations are evaluated against a unique and comprehensive set of gridded and in situ observations for the warm season from April to September regarding their ability to reproduce sub-daily and daily heavy precipitation statistics across the Nordic region.”

We have taken care of the specific comment as indicated below.

Specific comment:

• In line 97 the "analyzed sub-domain" is discussed. Does this refer to HCLIM3? Maybe this can be reformulated to make it more clear.

R: Thank you for pointing this out, this could indeed be formulated more clearly. We have added the sub-domain borders in Figure 1 and clarified this in the text.

We thank Referee #2 for the comments. Our point by point answers to the comments are presented below (bolded and marked with R).

Review on Médus et al: Characteristics of precipitation extremes over the Nordic region: added value of convection-permitting modelling

The paper addresses the added value of convection permitting simulations for the representation of daily and hourly precipitation extremes over complex terrain.

The manuscript is well written. It provides many useful aspects to the topic of the added value of simulations with an explicit treatment of deep convection. Very valuable is the comprehensive comparison of the simulations with various observation and reanalysis data sets and their thoroughly discussion of their characteristics and limitations. The results fit well to the findings of other papers in that field. Their conclusions are well supported by the material and not overstated.

I recommend the paper for publication.

R: We thank the reviewer for the positive review.

Minor point:

Line 420: The reference to Figure S5 should be correctly to Figure S4 c,d

R: Thank you for spotting this. We have changed the reference accordingly.