Abstract. Numerical wind resource modelling across scales from the mesoscale to the turbine scale is of increasing interest due to the expansion of offshore wind energy. Offshore wind farm wakes can last several tens of kilometres downstream and thus affect the wind resources of a large area. So far, scale-specific models have been developed but it remains unclear how well the different model types can represent intra-farm wakes, farm-to-farm wakes as well as the wake recovery behind a farm. Thus, in the present analysis the simulation of a set of wind farm models of different complexity, fidelity, scale and computational costs are compared among each other and with SCADA data. In particular, two mesoscale wind farm parameterizations implemented in the mesoscale Weather Research and Forecasting model (WRF), the Explicit Wake Parameterization (EWP) and the Wind Farm Parameterization (FIT), two different high-resolution RANS simulations using PyWakeEllipSys equipped with an actuator disk model, and three rapid engineering wake models from the PyWake suite are selected. The models are applied to the Nysted and Rødsand II wind farms, which are located in the Fehmarn Belt in the Baltic Sea. Based on the performed simulations, we can conclude that both WRF + FIT (BIAS = 0.52 m s−1) and WRF + EWP (BIAS = 0.73 m s−1) compare well with wind farm affected mast measurements. Compared with the RANS simulations, baseline intra-farm variability, i.e. the wind speed deficit in between turbines, can be captured reasonably well with WRF + FIT using a resolution of 2 km, a typical resolution of mesoscale models for wind energy applications, while WRF + EWP underestimates wind speed deficits. However, both parameterizations can be used to estimate median wind resource reduction caused by an upstream farm. All considered engineering wake models from the PyWake suite simulate peak intra-farm wakes comparable to the high fidelity RANS simulations. However, they considerably underestimate the farm wake effect of an upstream farm although with different magnitudes. Overall, the higher computational costs of PyWakeEllipSys and WRF compared with those of PyWake pay off in terms of accuracy for situations when farm-to-farm wakes are important.