In operational hydrology, estimation of predictive uncertainty of hydrological models used for flood modelling is essential for risk based decision making for flood warning and emergency management. In the literature, there exists a variety of methods analyzing and predicting uncertainty. However, case studies comparing performance of these methods, most particularly predictive uncertainty methods, are limited. This paper focuses on two predictive uncertainty methods that differ in their methodological complexity: quantile regression (QR) and UNcertainty Estimation based on local Errors and Clustering (UNEEC), aiming at identifying possible advantages and disad vantages of these methods (both estimating residual uncertainty) based on their comparative performance. We test these two methods on several catchments (from UK) that vary in its hydrological characteristics and models. Special attention is given to the errors for high flow/water level conditions. Furthermore, normality of model residuals is discussed in view of clustering approach employed within the framework of UNEEC method. It is found that basin lag time and forecast lead time have great impact on quantification of uncertainty (in the form of two quantiles) and achievement of normality in model residuals’ distribution. In general, uncertainty analysis results from different case studies indicate that both methods give similar results. However, it is also shown that UNEEC method provides better performance than QR for small catchments with changing hydrological dynamics, i.e. rapid response catchments. We recommend that more case studies of catchments from regions of distinct hydrologic behaviour, with diverse climatic conditions, and having various hydrological features be tested.