They are well suited in any area of computing storage needs that require speed, reliability, ease of management (with their Magician software), and good pricing is desired (i.e. day-to-day end-user desktop computer usage to HA, always-on SAN storage). Your end-users particularly will thank you for a Samsung SSD upgrade, especially if their machine is running off a hard drive, currently.
It is well suited where cost is a concern. And less suited where top quality is a concern. See now cost is less for SanDisk so it is assumed that it could be possible that somehow somewhere quality might be compromised. So a situation where cost doesn't matter, only quality matters, then you must go for another.
The QVO models of their drives suffer performance loss. Now, that is just inherent to the use of QLC NAND, but they could offset this by adding more fast cache to those drives.
I would love to see Samsung bring enterprise-style hot-swappable 2.5" PCIe drives to a more mainstream market. One of my biggest reasons for not going with NVMe drives in my latest production storage server was the cost-prohibitive nature of enterprise-grade hot-swappable NVMe drives.
I have been sitting here for 15 minutes trying to think of a 3rd improvement I'd like to see Samsung make to their SSDs. I cannot think of anything realistic to add. It was hard enough to come up with the first two. They are just really good all-around.
WIth a one vendor solution you are most likely getting Samsung SSD's (unless its intel or Kioxia or Micron), but from a performance and reliability standpoint we have seen very good results with Samsung ssd's.
As I had mentioned earlier the cost is the main positive point about SSD. The way SanDisk has maintained its cost and provided the performance is next-level. Samsung is also a good one. But it is costly as compared to SanDisk. Hence it will be less preferred. So SanDisk is better.
