The main purpose of this work has been to fit simulated results with performance data from Test Centre Mongstad (TCM), and evaluate whether fitted parameters for one scenario (a set of experimental data at specified conditions) give reasonable predictions at other conditions. Five different scenarios from the amine based CO2 capture process at TCM have been simulated in a rate-based model in Aspen Plus and an equilibrium-based model in Aspen HYSYS and Aspen Plus. In the rate-based model, the performance data was fitted by only changing the interfacial area factor to obtain the experimental CO2 removal efficiency. In the equilibrium based model, a Murphree efficiency (EM) was specified for each of 24 stages (meter of packing) to fit both the CO2 removal efficiency and the temperature profile. In case of equal EM values for every stage, the EM is the only parameter. In this work different EM-profiles (different EM values on each stage) were examined. Some of the specified EM-profiles were then used to fit performance data for other scenarios by adjusting only an EM-factor which multiplies all the EM values in an EM-profile. The performance (CO2 removal and temperature profile) was reasonably simulated for each given scenario for all the models. It was evaluated whether a fitted interfacial area (for the rate-based model) or an EM-profile (for the equilibrium based model) gave a good prediction for other conditions. An indication of the limited predictive ability of the rate-based model was that the interfacial area fitted to the different scenarios varied between 0.29 and 1.0. By multiplying the specified profile with an EM- factor (only one parameter), the fit at a new scenario was quite accurate. The fitted EM-factor from one scenario was fitted to values between 0.59 and 1.0 for all the scenarios. None of the models are expected to predict accurate performance for conditions far from the conditions in a specified scenario.