Without knowing that from both brands on these exact products, I can't with statistical confidence tell you who's doing better with their reliability.
Right, so we can look at the internals of the drive to give us a hint as to whether or not Team Group is manufacturing an inferior product; historically, manufacturer's have taken well documented measures to reduce costs, such as omitting DRAM, using an older or inferior controller, using planar NAND. Team Group had the option to go with the older Phison S10 controller or even toss out DRAM and go Phison S11 or even SM2258XT; this would have the largest impact on pricing and performance. TG chose arguably one of the best controllers on the market in addition to popular and proven NAND (whether it be Micron 32-layer 384Gbit, 256Gbit, or 64-layer 256Gbit). DRAM is a big bonus and adds significantly to endurance, but also price.
Most brands like that are using downgraded NAND that was deemed unacceptable by a name brand and they use it anyway.
I asked a few experts about this and about the Team Group 3D drive in particular. SSD grade NAND flash is regulated by JEDEC/ ONFI; Micron (and IMFT [Intel-Micron Flash Technologies]) actively collaborate with them and adhere to their standards (in North America, of course).
ADATA is one of the few (if not the only) third-party SSD manufacturer that rigorously bins the NAND they purchase; their binning standards are higher than that of Micron. This means, technically speaking, that an ADATA SSD utilizing Micron 256Gb 64-layer 3D TLC could consistently contain higher grade NAND than what Crucial uses for the MX500.
It should be noted that Crucial is owned by Micron.
The experts claim there's no reason to believe that Team Group SSDs utilizing "lower grade" NAND are subject to higher failure rates.
There's actually no indication that using lower grade NAND fails more; what's obvious is that endurance and performance can be affected, but again, the controller, amount of DRAM, ECC, etc. have as big of an impact. Flash drives obviously utilize lower grade NAND but they also utilize inferior controllers and technology all around.
https://www.spectek.com/docs/SpectekNANDBuyersGuide.pdf
There's probably 2-3Tb worth of NAND in there and they just used the pages of the chips that were still functional.
I asked specifically about this as well; they're not aware of any SSD manufacturer doing this. Seeing as how NAND is the most expensive part of an SSD and produced per die, this practice doesn't make much sense anyways and I've never seen a professional reviewer mention this as a thing. NAND is generally warranted. Seems like a lot of trouble regardless.
It's just more common with the no-name brands.
Every brand does this. Samsung even sells OEM client SSDs with varying hardware (PM, SM series) without DRAM. In markets outside of North America even Crucial SSDs have been found to contain varying hardware. Because the US has higher standards (consumer protections) SSD grade NAND is guaranteed.
I have not once seen a professional reviewer mention this as something that should be considered when purchasing an SSD. Considering just about every "reputable" manufacturer sells cheaper and often DRAM-less versions of their flagship SSDs anyways (Crucial BX500, ADATA SU650/ SU655 or SU630, Western Digital/ SanDisk with slightly re-branded newer 3D models that are difficult to differentiate from their older garbage-tier DRAM-less planar NAND models) it really doesn't make sense to choose the lowest possible grade of flash in an SSD. The ultra cheap SSDs typically utilize 15nm planar NAND anyways.