While numerical simulation is generally regarded as indispensable for wavefront engineering tasks such as OPC decoration and phase-shift mask design, full resist models are rarely used for this purpose. By "full resist models", we mean models derived from a physical, mechanistic description of the chemical response of the photoresist to exposure and the subsequent PEB and develop processes. More often, simplified models such as an aerial image threshold model or the Lumped Parameter Model (LPM) are used because these models are much faster and make optimization of optical extension technology more tractable. In a previous study, we examined the differences between the process windows calculated with full and simplified models, and we showed that the aerial image threshold model was not capable of describing even the qualitative shape of the process window calculated with the LPM and the full physical models in PROLITH. However, the comparison in our previous study was for an isolated line resist, and this class of resists typically has low contrast in order to improve depth of focus. In the current study, we compare the aerial image threshold model, the aerial image threshold with resist bias model, and the Lumped Parameter Model with the full physical models in PROLITH. All of the models are evaluated for simulating the response of both high and low contrast resists, and then we compare the resulting models' ability to predict process windows, line end shortening and defect printability.