Checked the Lenscore website and their results corroborate Erik's experience - the 16-35/4 outresolves the Canon 24 TSE. The Sigma outresolves them both.
The Lenscore numbers show so much incongruence with real-world experience that I find them impossible to believe. Furthermore, they do not publish their testing methodology. Do they compare all lenses wide-open (i.e. a wide-aperture lens would be tested at f/1.4 vs f/4, or even f/5.6, for some lenses), or all at f/6.3, or some other number that every lens can reach? Do they compare them at multiple apertures and focal lengths and average, them, or just take the best one? Which end of the focal length of zooms are they testing? Are they comparing centres, corners, edges or what?
This is a website that says that the Canon 100-400 (the original Dust Trombone) is sharper than the Canon 85/1.8 or 400/5.6, and even the Canon 24-70L II (which is renowned for sharpness and often compared to a 'bag of primes'). It rates the awful Canon 14/2.8 as sharper than both the 400/5.6 supertele prime (almost impossible to believe) and the 24-70/4.0 zoom, and even the Zeiss Distagon 18/3.5 (which, although Zeiss' worst lens, is not exactly a slouch). It rates the Canon 135/2.0 (well-regarded for sharpness) well below the Canon 50/1.2 (well-known as a less-than-razor-sharp lens) and the 16-35/2.8 II, with its near-unusable corners, far higher than the critically-sharp 85/1.8 and even the TS-E 24L II (whose corners on a full-frame sensor are still close to the middle of its image circle). It even rates Nikon's much-maligned, horribly-soft PC-E 24/3.5 as sharper than the Nikon 85/1.4G, Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 and Canon 70-200/2.8 II (again, often regarded as a 'bag of primes'), and almost 300 points higher than the Canon TS-E 24L II (which, by every other account, is a far superior lens). The fact that they don't publish their methodology or their measured data would render them suspect even if the numbers correlated with real-world experience, but, in many cases, they don't even do that.
Photozone.de has a far better set of numbers for resolution, where they test lenses at multiple apertures, multiple focal lengths and different parts of the frame and publish the raw results, in lp/mm, at each and every point. You sometimes need to convert the lp/mm measurements to equivalents to deal with test sensors of different resolutions and be able to recognise when sensor resolution, rather than lens resolution, is the limiting factor in a particular test, but the raw data gives you a much better idea of performance than Lenscore's arbitrary and derived numbers.