Long March 3B/E vs Long March 2D
Side-by-side comparison across specs, pricing, and overall score — every value traced to a source.
Verdict: Long March 3B/E ranks highest overall (#12) with a score of 47.1.
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 3B/E if LEO Capacity is weighted at 35% (it counts for 25% today). If leo capacity drives your decision, the ranking above may not be your ranking.
Fragile verdict
The overall winner flips to Long March 3B/E if Successful Launches is weighted at 10% (it counts for 25% today). If successful launches drives your decision, the ranking above may not be your ranking.
Real tradeoff
Long March 3B/E clearly beats Long March 2D on LEO Capacity but clearly loses on Successful Launches — this pair is a priorities question, not a quality question.
AI hot take
Sign in to generate a contrarian AI read of this comparison.
| Metric | Long March 3B/EChina Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation | Long March 2DChina Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation |
|---|---|---|
| Overall OptiSift Score | 47.1#12 | 46.7#13 |
| LEO Capacity | 12,000 | 3,500 |
| Successful Launches | 75 | 99 |
| Launch Cost | 70,000,000 | 30,000,000 |
| Failed Launches | 2 | 1 |
| Launch Mass | 456 | 232 |
| Length | 56.3 | 38.3 |
| Diameter | 3.35 | 3.35 |
| Reusable | No | No |