Long March 2C vs Long March 3B/E
Side-by-side comparison across specs, pricing, and overall score — every value traced to a source.
Verdict: Long March 2C ranks highest overall (#10) with a score of 49.2.
The best choice still depends on which specs matter for your workload — per-metric winners are marked below.
What the numbers hide
Computed from the published values below — no estimates, no generated claims.
Fragile verdict
The overall winner flips to Long March 2C if Failed Launches is weighted at 50% (it counts for 10% today). If failed launches drives your decision, the ranking above may not be your ranking.
Fragile verdict
The overall winner flips to Long March 2C if Diameter is weighted at 100% (it counts for 5% today). If diameter drives your decision, the ranking above may not be your ranking.
Real tradeoff
Long March 2C clearly beats Long March 3B/E on Failed Launches but clearly loses on LEO Capacity — this pair is a priorities question, not a quality question.
What nobody reports
Launch Cost (1 of 2 missing) — the questions worth asking vendors directly.
AI hot take
Sign in to generate a contrarian AI read of this comparison.
| Metric | Long March 2CChina Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation | Long March 3B/EChina Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation |
|---|---|---|
| Overall OptiSift Score | 49.2#10 | 47.1#12 |
| LEO Capacity | 3,850 | 12,000 |
| Successful Launches | 64 | 75 |
| Launch Cost | — | 70,000,000 |
| Failed Launches | 1 | 2 |
| Launch Mass | 233 | 456 |
| Length | 42 | 56.3 |
| Diameter | 3.35 | 3.35 |
| Reusable | No | No |