Several different functions have been put forward for evaluating the energetics of ligand binding to proteins. Those employed in the DOCK, GOLD and FlexX docking programs have been especially widely used, particularly in connection with virtual high-throughput screening (vHTS) projects. Until recently, such evaluation functions were usually considered only in conjunction with the docking programs that relied on them. In such studies, the evaluation function in question actually fills two distinct roles: it serves as the objective function being optimized (fitness function), but is also the scoring function used to compare the candidate docking configurations generated by the program. We have used descriptions available in the open literature to create free-standing scoring functions based on those used in DOCK and GOLD, and have implemented the more recently formulated PMF [J. Med. Chem. 42 (1999) 791] scoring function as well. The performance of these functions was examined individually for each of several data sets for which both crystal structures and affinities are available, as was the performance of the FlexX scoring function. Various ways of combining individual scores into a consensus score (CScore) were also considered. The individual and consensus scores were also used to try to pick out configurations most similar to those found in crystal structures from among a set of candidate configurations produced by FlexX docking runs. We find that the reliability and interpretability of results can be improved by combining results from all four functions into a CScore.