See attached.

This study examines the hydrological response of glaciers in 786 catchments across the Andes in the period 2000-2019 by integrating meteorological data and OGGM. Similar to the comment of the Referee #1, I wonder what is the research gap / justification / novelty of this study considering the availability of observations of glacier mass balance across the Andes (especially the study published by Dussaillant et al. (2019) in NATGEO for the 2000 – 2018 period)? Talking about the hydrological response and referring to Huss and Hock (2018) NCC paper, I would expect bit more elaboration of the peak water timing in different zones of the Andes. Or is the main goal the calibration and performance evaluation of the OGGM model? If so, the study should be re-framed and re-structured in my opinion.

- - -

L19-20: what is the meaning of these %?

L36: but the shrinkage did not start in late 1970s, please reformulate

L73-75: please consider deleting

L88: surprisingly, there are no meteorological stations included for 11°N to 9°S where there are different climatological conditions compared to the rest of the study region; please comment on how this gap can impact your analysis especially in the IT zone

L137: 12 of these 15 glaciers are located between 29°S and 39°S while only two glaciers are considered for 11°N to 29°S; please comment on how this gap can impact your analysis

L133-134: you may consider referring to your Fig. 2 already here

L147: median might be more interesting than mean

L158: please list these studies and summarize the main conclusions

L173: glacier entity vs. glacier?

L202: what are the basic properties of the NASADEM?

Fig. 1: please check the completeness of your workflow (e.g. the 3 catchments studies in detail); please also consider linking individual components of your workflow to the sections of the manuscript;

L223: to what elevation are these numbers referring to?

L245: please consider displaying a metric quantifying the fit between observed and corrected data in Tab. S2

Fig. 2: please consider incorporating also relative changes in this figure

Fig. 3: maybe a boxplot everyone can read without additional explanation could work here?

L318-320: the comparison of absolute numbers (m3/s) doesn’t tell a lot and the comparison is meaningless since these regions don’t have comparable glacier coverage; please check here and in other parts of the manuscript that the number you refer to can be compared across the zones / regions

L333: since there is no catchment studied north from La Paz, I wonder why not to use Peruvian Río Santa catchment for which similar data are available and you refer to it in introduction?

L365-377: this part is more about the climate (changes) and doesn’t correspond with the section title; please consider moving

Tab. 3: please show and compare simulated and observed values

L418-419: please delete

L453: please make sure that these studies appear in the list of references

L459-460: what is the p-value of these correlations?

L491-495: the main findings of these studies should be summarized in the Introduction and should help you to highlight research gap you are trying to bridge with your study (see my general comment)

L497-504: why not to present these findings in results section?

L512-524: please consider moving to methodology

L534-537: into the OGGM description section?

L547: these highlighted points are neither novel nor surprising considering available in situ and remote sensing-based observations of glacier mass balance across the Andes

- - -

To sum up, I’m convinced this study would benefit from (rather major) revisions regarding its structure, justification and framing in the context of the existing studies.