Agilent vs Waters HPLC Systems

[Marian.Deacon]

Have you worked with both Agilent and Waters LC's?. I would like to know how they compare?. I am working in a pharmaceutical QC environment. We have Waters systems and are considering the purchase of an Agilent system. The systems main application will be to run a 6ml/min gradient.

[KarenJ]

You better check the performance characteristics of the Agilent pump to make sure that it can do 6 mL/min. The pump on my 1100 only goes to 5 mL/min. I have not used Waters instruments, but the frustrations with my Agilent system and service have led us to ordering a Dionex Ultimate 3000. That pump goes to 10ml/min. It's not here yet so I can't say if we are happy with our choice yet. The Agilent has a lot of nice features but it also has a lot of frustrations for us. For example, if you get any liquid on a leak sensor, the entire instrument shuts down and you have to completely shut down the computer and all of the instrument components to re-initialize and get the software to talk to the instrument again. This can be very time consuming when you are troubleshooting a leak problem.

KarenJ

[SIELC_Tech]

Karen,

You need to change upper pressure limit on Agilent 1100 from 400 bar to 200 bar to operate at flow rates above 5 ml/min.

My personal preference is Agilent. I spend 13 years in big pharma and we had 95% Agilent 1100s (at least at our location)

Vlad

[sonikm_285]

Hi there

I have used Agilent-1100 & Waters-Empower both the systems. What I have felt is that Agilent-1100 system is very much user friendly compared to that of Waters. Both have very nice softwares to work with. Also u can go to a flow rate of 10.0 ml/ min. if you reduce the max. pressure to 200bar in Agilent systems. But I m surprised for your requirement of using 6.00 ml/ min. flow rate.

[ntruong]

Hi Marian,
I have used Agilent instruments for over 12 years and I have never had any problem with them. They are easy to maintain and user friendly as Sonikm_285 has said. These are pretty much the walk-up instrument. We have all Agilent in our lab (GCs and LCs) and keep ordering them for our increasing work load.
Good luck,

[Bruce Hamilton]

As others have noted, you can get up to 10 ml/min out of some 1100 pumps at 200 bar ( eg quaternary ), but I'm not sure if all can volume double all 1100 pumps though. You presumably talked to you local support about your flow needs, so I assume your 1100 models don't, or that you still need the high pressure.

However the most important question I would ask about any new system is what the local support is like. Especially if you need support for pharm compliance, and you're the only firm in the area.

Both Agilent and Waters have excellent hardware reputations, but pharma labs that start having multiple vendor instrument systems dramatically increase training and other requirements ( different qualification protocols etc. ), so ensure that you consider such aspects as well, as ease of use of software will impact on productivity.

You really can't go wrong with the hardware, but software and support are always important issues..

Bruce Hamilton

[SSGG]

I have used both, and software-wise, I find Agilent's ChemStation to be a lot simpler than Waters' Empower. So your staff will probably not have a problem transitioning from one to the other.

That being said, I agree that with the Agilent software, there is the annoying problem of having to restart the system and reboot the PC to perform most troubleshooting. It really sucks when you are in a QC environment and are pressed for time.

Also, I like the Waters pump - it seems to give me a really good baseline even with gradient work.

[Paulhurleyuk]

We use both Agilent 1100's and Waters Alliance in a pharma environment. The alliances have a tendancy to block at various points (mainly the two pump check valves and the in line filter) and they're quite hard to replace (and expensive). The Agilent's are a lot easier to service and more reliable, plus parts are cheaper.

If you're looking at higher flow rates think about a high pressure mixing pump (where mobile phase is pumped, then mixed) as they're generally more stable for higher flowrates.

I'd also have a look at the new Dionex Ultimate 3000, it looks good, and the design is a about twelve years newer than either the Agilent or the Alliance.

Paul.

--
Paul Hurley

[Imad]

I am working in a pharmaceutical QC and we have both systems, I agree with all the posts about the advantages of Agilent over the Alliance, and I think the presence of leak sensor (which is not there in the Alliance) is one of those advantages, though the shut down frustration it make, and we depend mainly on the 1100 on analysis of impurities, in addition we faced many problems with the Alliance check in valves and inline filters

[Jason Hendricks]

The majority of our systems are Waters Alliance 2695 systems and we have one Agilent 1100. When you compare the two the waters gives us more problems especially with the check valves (which are about $200 for a pair). Granted in our environment we have several different chemists who will run their analysis with different mobile phases so our systems do see a harsh environment instead of one chemist running the same method all the time, but the check valves have been really annoying.

On the 1100 the check valves seem to be more robust and some users with specific mobiles phases (such as ACN with phosphoric acid) have had to go to the 1100 because the check valves kept sticking on the waters 2695.

We recently purchased two Shimadzu 2010 instruments within the last year and so far we have been happy with them.

[unmgvar]

Hello Marian.Deacon

i am curios about your question, and have actually a few questions myself

you say that you wish to go at 6ml/min with a gradient.
it looks from your post that you are already doing it with the Waters system.
are you working with a monolith type column?

what is the noise level that you get? how much drift do you get?
i had bad experience running running such fast gradients with all systems for monolith applications
what is the peak width of your coumpounds? did you change your flow cell and tubing to accomodate for peak band broadning?

[Ary]

It really depends what systems you are considering?

If comparing 1100 v Alliance then the 1100 wins by a country mile.

If comparing 1200 v Acquity then I believe the Acquity is the better system although I only have word of mouth on this as I havent tested the 1200.

[John]

We have a 6mL/min gradient system we run on Shimadzu LC10ATvp high and low pressure mixing systems. We are fairly successful when we run it on a high pressure mixing system, but have a nightmare on our low pressure mixing systems.
Our methods lab seem to be able to run this system very well on their PE low pressure mixing system. Looking at the PE pump design, with its high volume cylinder, it is easy to see why it can cope with such methods.
J

[Paulhurleyuk]

I don't think you can compare the 1200 and the Aquity at all. The 1200 is an extension of a proven design that can perform at normal ranges and up to low particle sizes / high pressure stuff.

The aquity is a brand new design soley for low particle size / high pressure. It makes several compromises to do this and isn't suitable for 'conventional' HPLC, but presumably is good at the very high pressure stuff.

Just my $0.02

Paul.

[Victor]

Paul Hurley,

What, in your opinion, renders the Waters UPLC unsuitable for conventional HPLC?

I think the flow rate is limited to 2ml/min, but do you have any other reasons?