There have been many different tests and comparisons over the past many years, but from the research that I have read, in the general home office space there is little failure difference between the standard lines of desktop hard drives, such as the Seagate Barracuda and the WD Blue. However, there are differences in performance.
First, let me just state that I have personally experiences a much different story at our office over the last four years doing computer repair work. We see hard drive failures every week. The percentage of hard drive failures can be listed as approximately 25% Hitachi drives, 25% Toshiba drives, 45% Seagate drives, and 5% Western Digital drives. I started out using Seagate drives exclusively, but I started seeing way too many failures, even within one or two years of usage, and so we made the switch to WD and have been very pleased. I almost never see a WD drive failure, even after six or seven years of continual 24/7 usage.
We personally use the WD Black hard drives, not just because of the higher quality and 5-year warranty, but because they have the greatest performance for a SATA 7,200 rpm mechanical hard drive. The WD Blue drives are pretty close, though, and mainly just lack in cache.
I also want to point out that WD Green drives are meant for power efficiency, but are not designed for server environments. If you talk with WD product reps or server designers, they are only going to recommend the WD RE4 drives or possibly get away with WD Black due to the enterprise quality and built to handle the heat and vibration stress of multiple drives crammed together. We don't use the WD Green drives, I just never see a point to having slow storage.