We analyze the performance of the 2-rate $(1+λ)$ Evolutionary Algorithm (EA) with self-adjusting mutation rate control, its 3-rate counterpart, and a $(1+λ)$~EA variant using multiplicative update rules on the OneMax problem. We compare their efficiency for offspring population sizes ranging up to $λ=3,200$ and problem sizes up to $n=100,000$. Our empirical results show that the ranking of the algorithms is very consistent across all tested dimensions, but strongly depends on the population size. While for small values of $λ$ the 2-rate EA performs best, the multiplicative updates become superior for starting for some threshold value of $λ$ between 50 and 100. Interestingly, for population sizes around 50, the $(1+λ)$~EA with static mutation rates performs on par with the best of the self-adjusting algorithms. We also consider how the lower bound $p_{\min}$ for the mutation rate influences the efficiency of the algorithms. We observe that for the 2-rate EA and the EA with multiplicative update rules the more generous bound $p_{\min}=1/n^2$ gives better results than $p_{\min}=1/n$ when $λ$ is small. For both algorithms the situation reverses for large~$λ$.