Long March 3B/E 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 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.
Real tradeoff
Long March 3B/E clearly beats Long March 2C on LEO Capacity but clearly loses on Failed Launches — 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 3B/EChina Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation | Long March 2CChina Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation |
|---|---|---|
| Overall OptiSift Score | 47.1#12 | 49.2#10 |
| LEO Capacity | 12,000 | 3,850 |
| Successful Launches | 75 | 64 |
| Launch Cost | 70,000,000 | — |
| Failed Launches | 2 | 1 |
| Launch Mass | 456 | 233 |
| Length | 56.3 | 42 |
| Diameter | 3.35 | 3.35 |
| Reusable | No | No |