We present a brief overview of the first global closure test of the fixed parameterisation (MSHT) approach to PDF fitting. We find that the default MSHT20 parameterisation can reproduce the features of the input set in such a closure test to well within the textbook uncertainties. This provides strong evidence that parameterisation inflexibility in the MSHT20 fit is not a significant issue in the data region. We also present the first completely like--for--like comparison between two global PDF fits, namely MSHT and NNPDF, where the only difference is guaranteed to be due to the fitting methodology. We find that this gives a moderately, but noticeably, better fit quality than the central NNPDF4.0 fits and that this difference persists at the level of the PDFs and benchmark cross sections. The NNPDF4.0 uncertainties are found to be broadly in line with the MSHT results if a textbook $T^2=1$ tolerance is applied, but to be significantly smaller if a tolerance typical of the MSHT20 fit is applied.