This manuscript presents an interesting study. It investigates the CMLs consistency by comparing pairs of independent collocated devices operating at the same frequencies and at different frequencies, identifying random and systematic errors. In total, 14 pairs of independent collocated CMLs have been compared, without the use of other rainfall measurements as reference. This enabling the assessment of hardware homogeneity. Authors showed that collocated CMLs operating at identical frequency bands are in good agreement while CMLs operating at different frequency are found to be less consistent and with more evident systematic errors. Additionally, separating the rainfall types, they found  a high correlation for both convective and stratiform events.

The manuscript is of high quality. It is well written, clear, and adequately organized. The research question is clearly outlined, as well as results. I hence suggest a minor revision. I report below few comments.

• 6: it is not very clear whether the d and z coefficients have been estimated from a different set of events or from the same events used for the analysis.
• Lines 276-277: please specify what you mean with link sensitivity and how it is estimated.
• Figure 6 – Caption: I guess the number of collocated pairs should be 8 and not 5.
• Figures 7 and 9: the two figures look a little confusing. I suggest to color or tag them with respect to the different pairs. In this way they could also be better referred in the main text. Moreover, I think that it could be useful two split each figure into two, providing double-mass curves of cumulative rain for stratiform and convective events separately. The starting and ending of each event could also be marked on the curves.
• Did you try to calibrate WAA parameter for every single link? In this way you would have the best WAA calibration for each link and maybe it could be possible to better identify the discrepancies in Fig. 9.
• Authors could provide a table summarizing the uncertainties associated to the different sources of error (taken from literature) in order to compare them with the inherent error of rain-induced attenuation.

Please see my comments in the attached PDF.