Second instrument: same vendor or different?

[bunnahabhain]

Hi everybody

We are thinking about a second QQQ. Question is: Same instrument again (or same manufacturer), or different manufacturer.

Pro same manufacturer:
- We know the software
- Replacement parts can be used for both instruments
- Methods can be more easily transferred from one instrument to the other

Pro different manufacturer:
- Due to different source designs, some analytes may perform better on instruments from one or the other manufacturer => more flexibility

What do you think?
Thanks and nice weekend to everyone
Jörg

[skunked_once]

You should ask yourself the following questions?

1-Am I happy with the performance and service of the instrument that I currently have?

2-Will I be doing other types of analysis that do not work well on the instrument that I have and is there another instrument that will do that particular analysis better?

3-If there is a different instrument that is desirable, how good is the support and service for that instrument in my area?

4-Am I willing to learn another software program for a new instrument?

Other users may contribute more questions/advice.

[lmh]

Even if you go with the same manufacturer, it is worth looking round at what else is available. There may be other instruments that are actually, at the moment, better than the offerings of your existing supplier. If they are, you have to think whether the benefits out-weigh the advantages you've already listed for staying with the same.

Suppliers, stop reading here! If you do decide in advance to stay with the same, do not, no, never, never, let the sales rep know it's a done deal(*). If you tell them you're buying their product regardless, they will have no motivation whatsoever to do you a decent price, and you'll probably end up paying vastly, vastly, vastly more than someone who introduces an element of competition. There are list-prices and real prices. Which would you rather see on the quote?

(* personally I would be unhappy with a tender process that was actually artificial; I am not encouraging lying. I'm encouraging going into any purchase with at least some open mind, and being clear with the companies that your mind is not completely closed to competitors. That is enough to induce them to do their best - and no professional rep will hold it against you).

[KM-USA]

As complex as software is these days, I'd stay with same vendor if you are currently satisfied.

[bunnahabhain]

Thanks for the input so far.
Our current instrument is a Quattro Ultima Pt. As this is a rather old instrument, I would like to go to the next generation for increased sensitivity.
We have one method that we tried to implement on a partner lab using an Agilent 6410. They had a factor 10 better LOQ than us. I am not sure if this is only instrument age related, or (at least partly) source design related. The Quattro passes all OQ criteria, so I know it is in a very good shape. I also know from direct comparison with our Thermo MSQ (single quad) that some analytes can be measured very sensitive with one instrument and much worse with the other (and vice versa).
As we don't do routine analytics here but tailored method development for each customer I can't just go to the supplier and measure a representative sample - I have to find an instrument that works with all (in German a so-called "eierlegende Wollmilchsau").

So maybe I can boil all thisdown this to one question: Is the instrument manufacturer factor more or less important than the instrument age (not date of manufacture of the induvidual instrument, but year of introduction of the instrument series)?

[CE Instruments]

If you have an old instrument then you should always re-evaluate the current kit. LC/MS systems have continued to improve year on year especially with respect to sensitivity.

The key issue is do you like the current software ? Learning new software is the toughest part of changing vendor.

Please try and avoid tenders

Try the kit , ask each company for their best price. Pick the kit you prefer and use the lowest quote to get the best price from your vendor of choice. Note this may still be higher than the lowest quote

[lmh]

Personal opinion:

Instrument age is far more relevant than manufacturer (at least in triple quads/tandem instruments). They're designed and sold for a single job, and all the manufacturers are competing hard on the same few features: sensitivity and speed. If any manufacturer remained seriously behind the rest (at a given price) for more than a year or so, they'd go broke.

But I agree with you; different instruments will favour different compounds. If your lab is generalist, this isn't a factor you can control. I would suggest looking at the convenience of each manufacturer's offering, seeing how it fits your lab, your staff, and your work-flows and requirements, and be happy that any new instrument will outperform your existing old instrument.

[Leni]

I agree that age is more relevant than the manufacturer. These days i think marketing sets them more apart than actual performance. All types of equipment have advantages and disadvantages. What i can tell you from my experience, working with Agilent, Waters and Thermo a lot, a trying Merck HPLCs also, is that you need to take into consideration that not all software are even remotely the same. Some are far more complicated than they should be, some are not powerful enough etc. Some LC systems have serious bugs and issues which can give you headaches, or software that has serious flaws.

After working on all kinds of equipment i have made up my mind about weaknesses and strengths of each manufacturer, but this is more of a personal option. I would suggest you definitely try out the new software for at least a week before purchasing a piece of equipment (get a demo or get in touch with a lab that has the respective software).

PS. das mit der eierlegenden Wollmilchsau war geil