Abbott CELL-DYN Emerald vs.

Sysmex XP-300
Abbott CELL-DYN Emerald 22 vs. Sysmex XS-1000i

+ See Competitive Grid Emerald 22 (AL) vs Sysmex XS1000i and XN-550 AL

Abbott CELL-DYN Ruby vs. Sysmex XT-1800i
Note: CD3200 = CD Rubu (same technology inside)
Abbott CELL-DYN Ruby vs. Sysmex XN-1000
Disadvantages on Sysmex – the major ones:
• Ruby is fully optical analyzer giving the customer first pass Optical PLT in every CBC (for the
lowest price of the common CBC). XT/XN series offers normal CBC mode only with impedance
PLT, though being highly susceptible to all known PLT count interferences (microcytes, RBC/WBC
fragments, giant PLT, small PLT clumps, lipids, etc…). To overcome this, Sysmex is able to provide
optical PLT, but only by re-running the sample in CBC+RETC mode, making the price not double
(2 measurements of the same sample), but actually much more expensive, due to much higher
RETC reagent price.
• WBC and diff technology: Sysmex positions having more measurement channels as a an
advantage (DIFF channel, BASO channel,…). This is highly questionable, because more
measurement channels you have, more chance to have disagreement between them. This leads
to suppressed diff results (no results number displayed). As a result, you have to re-run the
sample trying to get the result. Ruby MAPSS technology uses 1 measurement channel only for
complete WBC differential, it always provides complete WBC and Diff results. I attach a proof
source, a study where Ruby outperforms Sysmex XT2000i analyzer. Sysmex is suppressing 3,1%
results while Ruby 0%.

Both “bullets” PLT and WBC/DIFF leads to higher First Pass Efficiency of our analyzer, having more
results valid / released from the first run – higher quality technology. Saving time, saving, labor, saving
money significantly. See again the proof source attached: Ruby only 4,3% samples required further
analyzer processing compared to 21% on Sysmex.