BACKGROUND: The Standardized Letter of Evaluation (SLOE) in Emergency Medicine (EM) was developed by the Council of Residency Directors in Emergency Medicine (CORD) to have a uniform approach to providing training programs with information about applicants in the match process. Recent revisions distinguish what setting letter writers originate (residency based [RB] training program vs. non-residency based [nRB] site). OBJECTIVES: The goal of this paper was to compare SLOE 2.0 scoring between letter writers from RB versus nRB settings. METHODS: This was a multi-institutional cross-sectional study. The study team from five residency programs collected data from SLOEs in their applicant pool from 2022 to 2023 match cycle. Each SLOE was reviewed for training location/SLOE type (RB vs. nRB) and numerical scores for sections A, B, and C (Anticipated Guidance [AG]). The data were not normally distributed, so were analyzed using descriptive and chi-squared statistics. Data were examined using Spearman's Rho ( ⍴ ) to evaluate the relationship of Part A and B scores with faculty estimates of AG. RESULTS: The study analyzed 3687 eSLOEs from 1772 applicants. The majority (N = 3526) were from RB faculty with only 161 from nRB faculty. The median scores were similar between groups, but the distribution of Part A and B scores was different between RB and nRB faculty. One exception was A4 (ability to perform common ED procedures) which had similar proportions of scores. There was a positive monotonic relationship between evaluation scores (Part A and B) and faculty estimates for AG, predicting up to 30% variability. Overall eSLOEs from nRB faculty had higher proportions of higher scores. CONCLUSIONS: This study found a significant difference in proportions of scores assigned between RB faculty versus nRB faculty on most items including AG.