The heterogeneity in recently published knowledge graph embedding models' implementations, training, and evaluation has made fair and thorough comparisons difficult. To assess the reproducibility of previously published results, we re-implemented and evaluated 21 models in the PyKEEN software package. In this paper, we outline which results could be reproduced with their reported hyper-parameters, which could only be reproduced with alternate hyper-parameters, and which could not be reproduced at all, as well as provide insight as to why this might be the case. We then performed a large-scale benchmarking on four datasets with several thousands of experiments and 24,804 GPU hours of computation time. We present insights gained as to best practices, best configurations for each model, and where improvements could be made over previously published best configurations. Our results highlight that the combination of model architecture, training approach, loss function, and the explicit modeling of inverse relations is crucial for a model's performance and is not only determined by its architecture. We provide evidence that several architectures can obtain results competitive to the state of the art when configured carefully. We have made all code, experimental configurations, results, and analyses available at https://github.com/pykeen/pykeen and https://github.com/pykeen/benchmarking.