C9300L-24T-4G-A or C9300-48T-E: Which Better Meets Your Network Requirements?

May 29 , 2025 17

When selecting enterprise networking equipment, Cisco's Catalyst 9300 series switches remain a top choice for many IT administrators. However, when faced with choosing between the C9300L-24T-4G-A and C9300-48T-E models, many purchasing decision-makers find themselves at a crossroads. Which device truly aligns with your operational needs? Let's examine this through a comprehensive comparative analysis.

 Core Specifications at a Glance

First, we present a concise comparison table of the fundamental technical specifications:

 In-Depth Performance Analysis

Regarding processing capability, the C9300-48T-E demonstrates clear advantages in switching capacity (480Gbps vs 176Gbps) and forwarding rate (357.14Mpps vs 130.94Mpps), making it more suitable for high-density, high-traffic environments. While the C9300L-24T-4G-A shows lower performance metrics, it adequately serves most small-to-medium office networks.

The memory configuration reveals that the C9300-48T-E's 8GB RAM and 16GB flash storage outperform the C9300L-24T-4G-A's 4GB/8GB configuration when handling complex network policies:

- Multi-protocol support: Greater stability when running multiple routing protocols simultaneously

- Security policies: Supports more ACL entries and sophisticated QoS policies

- Virtualization capability: Provides more headroom for future NFV deployments

However, for most branch office scenarios, the C9300L-24T-4G-A's configuration sufficiently meets daily requirements, and over-provisioning may lead to resource wastage.

 Feature Set Comparison

Although both belong to the Catalyst 9300 series, several key differences exist:

Port density presents the most visible distinction. The C9300-48T-E offers 48 Gigabit Ethernet ports—double that of the C9300L-24T-4G-A—making it ideal for user-dense office areas, while the 24-port version better suits small-to-medium deployments.

Security features available on both models include:

- Cisco DNA Essentials security features

- Encrypted Traffic Analytics (ETA)

- Identity-Based Networking Services (IBNS)

- MACsec 256-bit encryption

However, the C9300-48T-E's superior hardware shows less performance degradation when multiple security protections operate concurrently.

Programmability features supported by both:

- Python scripting automation

- REST API interfaces

- NETCONF/YANG data models

- Streaming Telemetry

 Design and Physical Considerations

Both switches employ standard 1U rack-mount designs with some nuanced differences:

- Dimensions/weight: The 48-port model measures slightly deeper (14.4" vs 13.8") and weighs more (4.1kg vs 3.5kg)

- Thermal design: The 48-port version incorporates more robust cooling for stable high-load operation

- Port layout: The 24-port version provides wider port spacing for easier cable management

- Indicators: The 48-port model includes more detailed status LEDs

While both benefit from 1U height for space-constrained environments, the 48-port version requires deeper rack space.

 User Experience Evaluation

Field reports from enterprise IT administrators reveal:

- Deployment flexibility: The 24-port version suits distributed deployments better, while the 48-port model excels in core aggregation

- Management complexity: Both share identical IOS-XE operating systems and management interfaces

- Maintenance convenience: The 24-port version's compact size facilitates installation in confined spaces

- Noise levels: The 48-port model's higher fan speeds generate more noticeable noise at full load

A retail network engineer noted: "We deploy C9300L-24T-4G-A at stores and C9300-48T-E at headquarters—this combination meets performance needs while optimizing costs."

 Cost and ROI Analysis

Pricing shows the C9300-48T-E carries 60-70% higher unit cost than the C9300L-24T-4G-A, but offers lower per-port expense. Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) considerations include:

- Initial investment: The 48-port model costs more per unit but saves ~15% per port

- Rack space: The 24-port version reduces data center space requirements in distributed deployments

- Power consumption: While the 48-port model consumes more total power, its per-port efficiency is better

- Expansion needs: For environments anticipating >40 ports, the 48-port version proves more economical

Scenarios requiring 40+ ports justify the 48-port model, while ~20-port needs favor the 24-port version with future expansion.

 Energy Efficiency Comparison

Power consumption metrics show:

- Idle state: 35W (24-port) vs. 45W (48-port)

- 50% load: 65W (24-port) vs. 85W (48-port)

- Full load: 110W (24-port) vs. 150W (48-port)

Although the 48-port version consumes more absolute power, its superior per-port efficiency may yield long-term operational savings.

 Compatibility and Expansion

Both models demonstrate equivalent compatibility:

- Module support: Share identical network and stacking modules

- Software compatibility: Run the same IOS-XE versions with matching feature sets

- Protocol support: Comprehensive traditional and modern protocol support

Expansion capabilities include:

- 4 available network module slots

- StackWise Virtual stacking technology

- Upgrade paths to Network Advantage or DNA Advantage licensing

Notably, while expansion slot counts match, the 48-port version delivers greater aggregate bandwidth when stacked.

 Software Support Lifecycle

Cisco provides identical software maintenance for both platforms:

- Initial software: Ships with IOS-XE 16.9.3 base version

- Update schedule: Receives identical maintenance releases and security patches

- Licensing paths: Equivalent upgrade options available

- Product lifecycle: Anticipated simultaneous End-of-Life dates

Administrators should note that some memory-intensive features (like advanced traffic analysis) may perform better on the 48-port model due to its hardware advantages.

 Purchasing Recommendations

Based on our analysis, we recommend:

Prioritize C9300L-24T-4G-A when:

- Current port requirements hover around 20

- Implementing distributed network architecture

- Data center space is constrained

- Budget limitations exist

- Future expansion plans are modest and well-defined

Choose C9300-48T-E when:

- Current port needs exceed 35

- Managing high-volume, centralized traffic

- Running advanced network services

- Per-port cost efficiency matters

- Planning long-term use without frequent upgrades

Final decisions should reflect actual network scale, business growth plans, and budget realities. We recommend conducting thorough port requirement assessments and 3-year network planning before procurement. When future needs are uncertain, opting for the more scalable solution typically proves wiser.