As a former Gamry employee and a current academic, I often get questions about which potentiostat is “good”. Since there is no way to universally answer this question, below are some notes regarding how I think about picking instruments.

• Hardware Limits: Most instruments in any field can do middle of the way measurements pretty well. For electrochemical equipment, this translates to mA level currents in V level potentials, in second level timescales. These parameters are not demanding on the hardware and any self respecting instrument can make these measurements easily. It is the edge cases where some equipment are better than others. For electrochemistry, currents below pA, impedance levels below mOhm or above MOhm, capacitance levels below nF or above 10s of F are where some hardware will be better than others. In those cases, making sure your measurement can be made by a physical demo is the only way to be sure.
• Reading specification sheets is an art in itself.
  • Lines in specification sheets could not be combined: In a very typical example, most potentiostats can sample faster than 100kHz and most of them can read pA level currents. However, the two cannot be done at the same time. 1 pA in 10 microseconds would correspond to ~600 electrons, which is impossible to measure at room temperature.
  • Conditions: Every measurement is done under it’s own conditions. It is very important that you make sure that the specification you are interested in is specified under your conditions. For example, cable length and type, level of voltage and current, speed and external noise levels all change performance. In the specifications every signle line is reported under different conditions optimized for specifically for best performance for that measurement.
• Software preferences: Software is a matter of taste. Before I was a Gamry employee, Gamry did not have a sequencing mechanism with a GUI. I, as a user back then, actually liked the script way of sequencing. It allowed me to write sequences that involved codes. I knew back then that a lot of users would rather have a GUI for sequencing. (The graphical sequencer that is now available was first shown to me when I was interviewing at Gamry.)
• Learning curve: Once you are comfortable with a brand, there is a barrier to switch. Especially if you are doing non-standard measurements(a lot of academics do), switching means relearning the methods to customize. Therefore sticking with what works is comfortable.
• Pricing: Academics understand the cost of components of the instrument(COGs in company speak), but typically don’t notice the rest of the costs. Any scientific instrument requires a long design and testing phase which requires highly skilled employees. This adds quite a lot to the cost of the instrument for the company to stay afloat. The first I heard of this was from Prof. Pete Kissinger. Specifically, in a PITTCON(ca.2010), he said (in probably different wording):
  • I was complaining that PAR was selling a potentiostat for 15k$ when it cost them 1k$ so I started my own company(Bioanalytical Systems). I then noticed why I should be selling a potentiostat for 15k$.

Overall, some instruments are objectively better than others in some aspects, but none of them is the universal best. There is a lot of personal preference that is involved in the selection regarding software preferences. What is right for me may not be what is right for you. I will never tell you that any instrument is the universal best.