Marantz or NAD

I'd like to poll Audiogon members as to how they believe Marantz products and NAD products compare. Are they even in an overall sense or would one be a step above the other? They each have their budget lines as well as their top higher end components. Are they comparable in terms of manufacturing quality and internal components used, in performance, in musicality, etc? Where is each one ranked in the high end audio scale of manufacturers? WOuld love to hear your opinions. Many thanks.
I've had 3 NAD amps/receivers (entry level & mid level) and recently bought a Marantz AVR for HT and very happy with my purchase.

My Comparison:
1. Sound: Even though NAD brags more about their Hifi heritgage, the Marantz sounded just as good in Hifi and better in HT for slightly less money. Both NAD & Marantz have honest power ratings.

2. Features, Reliablity, Build Quality: Marantz easily wins in first 2 categories and Marantz having ever so slightly better build quality.

3. Value & Reputation: I felt bang for your buck, the Marantz offers more for the same price. However, NAD I would say has a more audiophile reputation and also holds it value better on resale. I guess if you take into account vintage Marantz tube gear, perhaps you'd call it a draw on reputation.

Haven't used NAD's Master series or Marantz's Reference series before so above comments do not apply to these equipment
Hi Bonger:

Thanks very much for the reply. That is an excellent response. I don't think anyone could have stated it better. I too had two NAD receivers in the past plus some CD players. Now I went with a Marantz A/V receiver just like you and am very pleased. Just got it two months ago. And yes, you seem to get more with Marantz for less price. That's why I was asking about the differences in the two companies. Thanks again. Anyone else?

I had a Marantz SR-19 in my home theater. My wife and I truly loved the sound. The ONLY reason I currently use a B&K is because I wanted 7.1 with bass mgmnt amd Marantz didn't offer it at the time. Don't get me wrong, the B&K is terrific and Lexicon is the only upgrade I'd even consider (but can't possibly afford). When my mom's Sony ES HT reciever went out, I bought her a new Marantz SR 4400 to replace it. She's 82 years old and enjoys HT. If anything ever happens to my B&K, I'll be looking to Marantz.
I can't comment on NAD, but I am very pleased with Marantz receivers. I own from the Reference Series two SM-17 amps bridged for 200w/c with a PM-17 integreted receiver as a preamp. The sound is slightly warm but very crisp and would rival more expensive units.
I also own a PM-74D integrated quarter-A amp with 100 w/c for a bedroom system and a SR-7000 100w/c A/V receiver for surround. All great sound and great value.
I thought the NAD leaned more towards the middle as for as sound goes. Marantz was a touch warmer. But in the same price range I found the NAD to be more detailed in the presentation. If I recall the Marantz PM-7200 has a nice feature. You can switch it to class a @ 30 watts.

I do however like the apperance of the NAD much better. The Marantz looks like a blakc blob to me.