Sequencing statistics and CpG coverage are shown for MethylC-seq, (207 lanes, data analyzed here were from Lister, et al. 8.), RRBS (2 lanes), MeDIP-seq (4 lanes each), MBD-seq (3 lanes), and MRE-seq (3 lanes each). Since the amount of sequence produced per lane is increasing, we also provide “Gbp of sequence” as a measure of the relative cost of each method. The methods differ significantly in total bases generated by the Illumina sequencer, total high quality bases passing Illumina chastity filtering and mapping uniquely, and total bases used for generating methylome maps (high quality bases passing redundancy filters) (a) The H1 replicates assayed and the Gbp of sequence at successive processing stages by each method are shown. The bisulfite-based methods and MRE-seq resolve the methylation status of individual cytosines, whereas the MeDIP-seq and MBD-seq read mappings are extended to 150bp, resulting in a maximum resolution of 150bp. This extension is applied to calculations of CpG coverage but is not applied to the Gbp of sequence at the processing stages. Coverage information is shown for repeats (primarily transposon sequences) genome-wide. While maximum resolution of each method is reported, resolution can be assessed at various levels. As the level of resolution decreases, as a consequence of averaging of methylation scores over a window of larger size for example, imperfect coverage and limited accuracy become less limiting, provided that the average score is not affected by systematic biases in coverage and accuracy. Thus, methylome coverage and accuracy in methylation calls are a function of resolution. (b) The percentage of genome-wide CpGs (28,163,863) covered by multiple, single or no methods are shown. The percentage of CpGs covered genome-wide (c) or in CGI (d) are plotted as a function of read coverage threshold.