Their claim is they are focusing on reliability and write endurance but it looks like they have some of the lowest endurance in the industry.
Even the drive it is supposed to be a bit of a clone from is rated much higher.
AMD R7: 4GB for 4 years = 43TB (Odd that they don't say this is dependent on drive size, which it would be.
OCZ Vector 150: 50GB for 5 years = 91 TB (Also not scaled for drive size)
Samsung 840: 1000 cycles. In their smallest drive this would be around 120 TB. Samsung is using lower endurance TLC here so this is even more odd.
Intel 730: 70TB over their 5 year warranty is 127 TB Highest of them all for MLC.
Now in real life, the AMD and OCZ drives may go much further before they fail, but you have to go off of their ratings for comparisons or all hell breaks loose (Tests have shown the Samsung drives lasting over 3000 cycles before beginning to reallocate sectors). Especially for the larger drives (A 240GB drive should have double the write endurance of a 120GB drive).
So yeah I find it odd that endurance is one of their talking points when they have by far the lowest endurance of any of the common drives out there, including the supposedly very similar Vector 150.