The 14 Minnesota density functionals published between the years 2005 and early 2016 are benchmarked on a comprehensive database of 4986 data points (84 datasets) involving molecules composed of main-group elements. The database includes non-covalent interactions, isomerization energies, thermochemistry, and barrier heights, as well as equilibrium bond lengths and equilibrium binding energies of non-covalent dimers. Additionally, the sensitivity of the Minnesota density functionals to the choice of basis set and integration grid is explored for both non-covalent interactions and thermochemistry.Overall, the main strength of the hybrid Minnesota density functionals is that the best ones provide very good performance for thermochemistry (e.g. M06-2X), barrier heights (e.g. M08-HX, M08-SO, MN15), and systems heavily characterized by self-interaction error (e.g. M06-2X, M08-HX, M08-SO, MN15), while the main weakness is that none of them are state-of-the-art for the full spectrum of noncovalent interactions and isomerization energies (although M06-2X is recommended from the ten hybrid Minnesota functionals). Similarly, the main strength of the local Minnesota density functionals is that the best ones provide very good performance for thermochemistry (e.g. MN15-L), barrier heights (e.g. MN12-L), and systems heavily characterized by selfinteraction error (e.g. MN12-L and MN15-L), while the main weakness is that none of them are state-of-the-art for the full spectrum of noncovalent interactions and isomerization energies (although M06-L is clearly the best from the four local Minnesota functionals). As an overall guide, M06-2X and MN15 are perhaps the most broadly useful hybrid Minnesota functionals, while M06-L and MN15-L are perhaps the most broadly useful local Minnesota functionals, although each has different strengths and weaknesses.