Long March 2D vs Long March 2C
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 2D if Successful Launches is weighted at 35% (it counts for 25% today). If successful launches drives your decision, the ranking above may not be your ranking.
Fragile verdict
The overall winner flips to Long March 2D if LEO Capacity is weighted at 15% (it counts for 25% today). If leo capacity drives your decision, the ranking above may not be your ranking.
Real tradeoff
Long March 2D clearly beats Long March 2C on Successful 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 2DChina Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation | Long March 2CChina Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation |
|---|---|---|
| Overall OptiSift Score | 46.7#13 | 49.2#10 |
| LEO Capacity | 3,500 | 3,850 |
| Successful Launches | 99 | 64 |
| Launch Cost | 30,000,000 | — |
| Failed Launches | 1 | 1 |
| Launch Mass | 232 | 233 |
| Length | 38.3 | 42 |
| Diameter | 3.35 | 3.35 |
| Reusable | No | No |