In actual studies, not comments sections, Intel leads the pack with half of one percent failure rate.
This is from a review last week: Based on test results, the Intel 520 Series 240GB is a rock solid performer, we can see a vast improvement over its 510 Series predecessor. Intel has waited the right time for the SF-2281 before they finally use it, due to some bugs issues with SandForce controller was facing before. For years, Intel SSDs has an almost perfect record and goes through extensive test procedure before shipping it to consumers. This is what reliability is all about.
Why would anyone want a 510?
I am not trying to take anything away from Intel. The drive I will buy will be the 510 or the M4.
The most quoted SSD reliability studies that have been conducted are older and have likely used the Crucial C300 and have compared it to the previous version of Intel's SSDs (not that their current ones are any less reliable as I consider the 510 to be the standard of the ideal SSD). I am not saying Crucial is more reliable than Intel. Intel is a pack leader in reliability, but I am saying that the M4 seems to be much more reliable than their previous models and such a high level of customer satisfaction must be assumed to indicate lower failure rates as Crucial's previous models were not nearly as well rated. The M4 is the only SSD that has customer satisfaction ratings that are right next to Intel. And IIRC, there are some design similarities between the two.
And as much as I do value studies, for things such as hard drives, user data must be taken into account. Unless the SSD study had the sample size of the famed Google HDD study, then other data needs to supplement it as well. If you want to look at trend data for customer satisfaction, Intel stands far above any other maker with literally multiple years of consistency in excellence.