Recent advances in automatic text summarization have contemporaneously been accompanied by a great deal of new metrics of automatic evaluation. This in turn has inspired recent research to re-assess these evaluation metrics to see how well they correlate with each other as well as with human evaluation, mostly focusing on single-document summarization (SDS) tasks. Although many of these metrics are typically also used for evaluating multi-document summarization (MDS) tasks, so far, little attention has been paid to studying them under such a distinct scenario. To address this gap, we present a systematic analysis of the inter-metric correlations for MDS tasks, while comparing and contrasting the results with SDS models. Using datasets from a wide range of domains (news, peer reviews, tweets, dialogues), we thus study a unified set of metrics under both the task setups. Our empirical analysis suggests that while most reference-based metrics show fairly similar trends across both multi- and single-document summarization, there is a notable lack of correlation between reference-free metrics in multi-document summarization tasks.