gradient or isocratic?

[Jumpshooter]

I have developed and validated three analytical methods for detection of various bioactive molecules--Vitamin A; Thiamine; and Riboflavin. When I presented them at a "break out session" at a regional nutrition science conference, two of the audience members questioned--why I'm not using gradient elutions. I responded to them that why use a gradient when isocratic worked just fine--it's much simpler & faster to prepare runs (a major point) and less taxing on the software-regulated proportioning valves (but that is a minor issue). I'm curious--How would you'all here defend such a thesis?

[Wayne Way]

isocratic methods are more robust when transferrring from instrument to instrument, especially if mobile phase is premixed (versus online mixing).

[DR]

Remember the rule of K.I.S.S.

[sassman]

Isocratic method is faster as long as the capacity factor is similar for your analytes because there is no re-equilibration between runs. Faster means less expensive.

[Consumer Products Guy]

We always use isocratic if it works for the assay. Like the other posters stated: different systems will be "more different" with gradients, and I've seen many issues with insufficient post-run or re-equilibration time/volumes. So real throughput is usually more with isocratic.