In April 2012, your journal published a study by Loman et al.1 that systematically compared desktop next-generation sequencers (NGS) from three instrument providers. Using the custom scripts supplied by the authors, the same software and the same draft genome (with 153 remaining gaps within several scaffolds) as the reference, we reproduced their results with their data of the enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli (EHEC) strain found in the 2011 outbreak in Germany. However, we wish to bring readers’ attention to some shortcomings in the report from Loman et al.1, focusing particularly on its discussion of read-level error analysis. NGS is a rapidly changing market, which clearly complicates the comparisons such as that made by Loman et al. Since the original study1, Illumina (San Diego) has launched the MiSeq sequencer officially and has released Nextera library construction kits and 2 × 250–base-pair (250-bp) paired-end (PE) sequencing chemistry. Furthermore, Life Technologies (Carlsbad, California), has made 200-bp and 300-bp kits available for the Ion Torrent Personal Genome Machine (PGM). Roche (Basel, Switzerland) has updated the Sequencing System software for its 454 GS Junior (GSJ) from version 2.6 to 2.7. In this report, we provide an up-to-date snapshot of how benchtop platforms have evolved since the previous study1.