I am securities analyst for an investment firm in LA. For our private use with no attribution, I am looking into Dionex and its ability to penetrate the LC market against the entrenched comp of Waters, Thermoquest and Agilent. Any thoughts as to hardware quality and differences, software quality and differences, general inertia in buying patterns -i.e.-we've always used Waters and it would be a giant pain to switch etc., and any thoughts in general about the competitive positions of each in the different aspects of chromatography.
thanks
ps.

PS. Is anyone being "forced" by their purchasing departments to use people like Chemdex or Sciquest to order materials, reagents etc?

While I haven't any up to date first hand information with regard to Dionex, I did use some of their instrumentation many years ago and I found it to be satisfactory. That said, I would be unlikely to shift from using Waters equipment at this point unless there was a great incentive for me to do so. I've been using Waters equipment and software for about ten years and have found it to be most satisfactory and VERY durable (3 years of constant use on one pump rebuild), though definitely expensive to buy.

I respect Dionex and I would definitely give them and Agilent both a look if I were setting up a lab from the walls in, but in my current situation with a lab full of Waters stuff, there's little point.

Cj

Unless Dionex adds LC/MS instrumentation to its list of products, it doesn't stand a chance in the market against the other companies. LC/MS is the direction everyone is going, and Waters (Micromass), Thermoquest (Finnigan) and Agilent all have fully integrated LC/MS systems. Dionex will have to add this capability if they expect to compete with them.

While I haven't had any experience with Dionex LC systems, I had the misfortune to deal with a sales representative when they purchased the Lee Scientific SFC line. I was trying to get some samples tested for SFC suitability and was essentially told that I would have to give a purchase order for the instrument before samples could be tested. I don't think that attitude will be successful with LC systems. We have five Shimadzu systems (I know there are some people with very strong anti-Shimadzu opinions but ours have been mechanically reliable and we USED to have a good sales representative in the Midwest U.S., something HP/Agilent did NOT have when we purchased our first LC system) and we would need some compelling reasons (such as lack of sales support from Shimadzu or clearly superior equipment from another manufacturer) to change.

My opinion is that Dionex will do very well. Especially since theve bough Gyncotec which is a well know builer of HPLC apparatus.
I disagree with Leslie that LC/MS will be the only change for an instrumentation builder to be succesfull. Of course LC/MS has great potentials but is only used in a small segment of the market mostly by pharmaceutical companies.
So that leaves opportuneties open for companies like Dionex

I received my first Gynkotek (today Dionex) LC pump in 1982. It is still in use! I have also the newest model of pump (580) and DAD detector (170/340). I'm very much satisfied.
The "Chromeleon" data system is especially fine and clever. I had the opportunity to compare it with Waters, PE, Agilent and for me Chromeleon is more comfortable and easier to use than the others from the competitors. (I know, of course, this is a very subjective statement.)
Otherwise I agree: an MS "detector" is today more or less a necessity.

If you were primarily interested in ion chromatography, I would suggest to go with Dionex. Otherwise, you are better off with a big guys like Agilent, Waters or Thermo.

The anti-Shimadzu rhetoric is from a disgruntled ex-employee; no reason to take it seriously.

-AP, Ann Arbor

I think it is definitely feasible to enter the LC market for Dionex. Everyone knows, even though I have had some unfortunate dealings with Dionex sales representatives in the past, that they make one of the best IC systems in the world. The important thing to remember is they are entering a new market where they will not automatically be considered the best manufacturer available.

Since other companies have been able to enter in and steal from Dionex's market share on the ion chromatography market, then it is logical to think that they could do the same.