Are Alternative Dark Energy Models Treated More Favorably Than MOND?

[BWV]

I’m trying to get a clearer sense of how the physics community evaluates alternative explanations for dark energy compared to alternative explanations for dark matter, such as MOND. My impression is that modified‑gravity approaches to dark matter (e.g., MOND and its relativistic extensions) tend to face strong skepticism, whereas alternative dark energy models—like quintessence, k‑essence, or modified gravity frameworks that mimic cosmic acceleration—seem to receive somewhat broader consideration in mainstream cosmology.

To be clear, I’m not asking whether these alternatives are correct, only whether the degree of openness differs between the two cases, and why. Is it because dark energy is already poorly understood, so theorists feel more freedom to explore alternatives? Or is it because MOND‑type theories run into more direct conflicts with cosmological data?

For context, here is a recent paper that surveys a range of dark energy alternatives, including dynamical fields and modified gravity models:

Survey Paper:
Dark matter and dark energy: Models, challenges, and future perspectives (A. Kumar, 2024).
DOI link: https://doi.org/10.33545/26648636.2024.v6.i1a.136

And here is a relevant discussion of the methodological issues surrounding MOND and why many physicists remain unconvinced:

Citation:
Duerr & Wolf, Methodological Reflections on the MOND/Dark Matter Debate (forthcoming in Studies in History and Philosophy of Science).

I’d be interested in hearing from those familiar with cosmology or gravitational theory:

• Do you think the community is more receptive to dark‑energy alternatives than to MOND‑like dark‑matter alternatives?
• If so, what drives that difference—empirical constraints, theoretical coherence, historical precedent, or something else?
• Are there particular alternative dark‑energy models that are currently taken most seriously?


Thanks in advance for any insight!