Dear All

I am working in a university and am planning to purchase a new HPLC purification platform (semi-preparative scale). I have two final alternatives: Agilent and Waters. Since I have used Agilent analytical system, I personally incline to Agilent. But I would like to listen more from expects in this field, especially on:

1. Hardware robustness
2. Software capability, ease of use, GxP compliance, etc

Thanks much

Agilent Chemstation for HPLC is practically identical to the GC Chemstation; data analysis is 100% the same. My company uses only Agilent at R&D and at its QC labs, very reliable hardware.

Thanks, Anonymous.
An additional point: I will have a fraction collector and the corresponding software also.

Chemstation is going away soon....
http://www.chem.agilent.com/scripts/LiteraturePDF.asp?iWHID=34709.

Aglients prep and semi prep products are genearlly weaker than the Waters line in a number of respects.

Would you please spend a few min on telling me the weakness of Agilent prep and semi-prep products in your opinions? Thanks

The question here is not "which is better" the question is which will do my specific task(s) better. To answer that question, you need to come up with some criteria that defines that your tasks. You then need to formulate a series of questions that yuo will ask both (or more) of the sales reps you talk to. So far, your questions are "is your hadware rugged?" (answer from both =yes) and "is your software easy to use and compliant" (answer from both =yes). Not very tough questions. Ask the tough question and get real answers, maybe you should ask the respective sales reps about the weakneses of both systems.

So good questions to ask:

When the system breaks, who fixes it and how long will it take them to get here?

How much training on the software and hardware will I get?

Can it do "insert your method here".

The more questions you ask, the better chance you have of making a quality decision.

I have already known some details of both of the systems, for example, fluidics path, solvent mixing, pump ruggedness (e.g., in handling high salt content mobile phase), reproducibility of DAD signal, use of reference wavelength or not, data station, module interface, ease of use and functionality of software, data analysis capability, GxP compliance, database management (copying & backup of files), column fittings, training for new users, after sales services and downtime, price, etc.

Particularly, I would like to hear from someone who has used both systems before and is willing to tell me the differences between them in his/her own opinions. I mean some user comments. I will bear in mind of their opinions and comments.

It sounds like you have done your homework and have asked enough of the right question to make a good choice. It baffles me why you would feel the need to poll a bunch of perfect strangers on their opinion about this descision. You could not possibly know anything about the motives behind the comments making those comments pointless. You need to ask people you know and trust who have (hopefully) no hidden agenda. If you dont know anyone, you will have to trust the fact that you did as much research and asked as many of the right questions as you could. It sounds like you are ready to buy, but something is making you hesitate, mabey you should explore that hesitation. I have used both systems and do have a preference but am not about to be pulled into the which is better debate, it is pointless.

I don't have hesitation. Anyway, thanks for reading my messages.

You might also want to consider the Varian and Gilson equipment for preps. These will do flow rates up to 200ml/min easily. Both work pretty well. They are chunky bits of kit; not sure about current prices. Both companies have been doing prep scale for a long time, and know what you need. Columns 25 to 100 mm will work with these systems. What do you expect the future to hold with respect to long term requirments?

David

My candid opinion about both

I have a Waters HPLC 2690 with 486 uv detector, and an agilent 1100 LC/MS for two years now.

I generally find the Agilent LC to have more minor maintenance problems while the Waters is a reliable work horse.

However, the Millennium software of the Waters is not research/method development friendly and takes a long time to perform operations (always opening new and useless windows).

The Chemstation software seems to still have several bugs but supposedly that's going away. I do find it easier to use, especially when I go to modify a method while it's running (ie. if the wash time wasn't long enough)

As for repairs to bigger problems, I find Agilent to be more helpful. There tech support on the phone has always given great advice that shows they are experienced. The engineers that visit are highly skilled and I have never seen turnover in personnel for six years. Sorry, I can't say the same yet about Waters which took several weeks to replace a circuit board. (although the waters has only one visit in two years, where the Agilent LC/MS has had...4??)

It also seems the Waters engineer and tech support have high turnover suggesting to me that it's not an employee friendly company.

Overall, I prefer Agilent to Waters b/c there product is more universal. Waters tubing and columns require there own special ferrules etc.

You will however pay a pretty penny for Agilent products and service.

about the skills of the waters service-engineers. i think this country-dependent. here in the netherlands i am very satisfied with waters engineers and agilent engineers. don't know about other places.....

I tend to agree with MGB that the Waters instruments have fewer repair problems. However, when I worked with Agilents instruments in the Midwest, I found that the service was terrible. It may be different in other parts of the country. We had a service contract, and I can't think of a single time when they repaired the instrument within the time allotted in the contract. I prefer to do most repairs myself because it is faster. With that in mind, the Agilent systems are easier to fix, and considering that they have to be fixed more often.... But Waters makes their systems difficult to access. Even to change outlet tubing, you have to remove the cover, and even removing the cover requires tools. This can be a problem if you are limited in space, and it is time consuming. Agilent doesn't make you deal with purge/wash solvent or sample loops, but Waters provides you with more flexibility (as far as I know, Agilent can't handle a 384 well plate and special configurations have to be used for larger sample volumes).

I have to say I found Waters fittings much better than Parker design. We use one piece slip-free PEEK screws. Waters column do not leak. Columns from other manufacters must be tight very carefuly and leak sometimes. This makes me think that 0,130 in. ferrule setting has advantages over 0,090 in. setting.
Also Waters support is good here (Czech). I will have first Agilent system next week so I cannot compare yet.

Thanks DavidG, MBG, Albert, Michele, and Vojtech. It is always interesting and useful to listen to different viewpoints of others. The local technical support and service turns out to be a very important paramter for me to bear in mind.