Finite Elemente Ceraball vs Nordost Pulsar Point

Has anyone compared the Ceraball to the Pulsar Point? Which is a more efficient product in supporting components on a Finite Elemente Spider rack?

Any advice would be appreciated.
I do have a set of Ceraballs and I have 3 sets of Pulsar points there all in A box , and going to stay there . At one point in my audio life I thought every thing should be on cones or points or something , it turned out to be not as simple as that , especially tubes . As far as cones go I had the most uniform performance with carbon fiber , such as Black Diamond . As I've gotten older and maybe wiser I've taken on A dislike for any kind of cone , spike , ball , spring , ect . I now use heavy , rigid platforms . Again carbon fiber seems to do the most good without causing other anomalys . I know its more expensive to have every thing on turntable type platforms , but you can do it over time . The sonic results are impressive and uniform , especially the lower octaves . As far as your Question, I would say the Ceraballs will cause less problems on more components than the p . points Have fun and good luck . MAX
Thanks for the response. I have bought the FE Spider rack and will explore the Ceraballs in due time. I agree on the advantages of proper rigid platforms(or proper rack system) over cones and spikes. However, some platforms and/or racks are designed to be used with their own tuning devices, the Ceraball Spider on the Spider rack for instance.