Why Choose C9300L-48P-4G-E Over C9300-48T-E? A Comprehensive Comparison

May 29 , 2025 17

When selecting enterprise networking equipment, Cisco's Catalyst 9300 series switches remain a top choice. However, many IT decision-makers face confusion when comparing the C9300L-48P-4G-E and C9300-48T-E models. Which one better suits your business needs? Let's examine the key differences through a detailed comparison.

 Core Specifications Comparison

We begin with a concise table outlining the fundamental technical parameters of both devices:

 Performance Analysis

While both switches offer 480Gbps switching capacity—sufficient for most enterprise applications—their memory configurations differ significantly. The C9300-48T-E features double the memory (8GB RAM and 16GB flash) compared to the C9300L-48P-4G-E. This difference manifests in several operational aspects:

- Complex Policy Handling: The C9300-48T-E demonstrates more stable performance when implementing numerous ACLs and QoS policies

- Future Scalability: Larger storage accommodates future software upgrades, particularly important for network functions virtualization (NFV)

- Log Retention: Devices with greater memory can maintain operational logs for longer durations, aiding troubleshooting

However, for most small-to-medium business networks, the 4GB RAM and 8GB flash in the C9300L-48P-4G-E provide adequate performance without unnecessary resource allocation.

 Feature Set Differences

PoE Capability represents the most noticeable distinction. The C9300L-48P-4G-E delivers 48 PoE+ ports with 30W per port (740W total budget), enabling simultaneous power delivery to IP phones, wireless APs, and surveillance cameras. This significantly reduces cabling complexity. Conversely, the C9300-48T-E requires separate power sources for all connected devices.

Both models share these security features:

- Identity-Based Networking (IBN)

- Encrypted Traffic Analytics (ETA)

- Cisco TrustSec security group tagging

- MACsec 256-bit encryption

The C9300-48T-E's superior hardware maintains better performance when multiple security features operate concurrently.

 Design Considerations

Both switches employ identical 1U rack-mountable designs with nearly matching front-panel layouts. Key physical differences include:

- Thermal Management: The C9300L-48P-4G-E features enhanced cooling for stable PoE operation

- Indicator Lights: PoE models include additional status indicators for power delivery

- Weight Distribution: The PoE version weighs approximately 5.4kg compared to 4.1kg due to integrated power supplies

While both fit standard racks, installers should verify depth clearance for PoE models in confined spaces.

 User Experience Evaluation

Field reports from enterprise IT administrators reveal:

- Deployment Efficiency: C9300L-48P-4G-E significantly reduces installation time for IP phone and wireless networks

- Management Interface: Both run IOS-XE with identical management interfaces

- Reliability: Non-PoE models demonstrate marginally lower failure rates

- Acoustic Performance: PoE switches generate more noticeable fan noise under heavy loads

An education sector network engineer noted: "The PoE version eliminated separate power supplies for classroom APs. While the initial investment was higher, it reduced our long-term maintenance costs substantially."

 Cost Analysis

The C9300L-48P-4G-E carries a 30-40% higher initial price point due to PoE components, but total cost of ownership (TCO) analysis shows:

- Cabling Savings: Approximately $150-200 per port reduction in wiring costs

- Energy Efficiency: Centralized power proves 15-20% more efficient than distributed solutions

- Maintenance Reduction: Unified management saves roughly 20% in personnel costs

- Expansion Readiness: No additional budgeting required for new PoE devices

Organizations planning to deploy more than 20 PoE endpoints within three years often find the PoE version more economical overall.

 Power Consumption Comparison

Energy efficiency metrics break down as follows:

- Idle State: 45W (non-PoE) vs. 60W (PoE)

- Typical Load: 85W (non-PoE) vs. 120W (PoE, excluding PD devices)

- Maximum Load: 150W (non-PoE) vs. 740W (PoE)

Notably, PoE switches typically carry higher efficiency certifications (like 80 PLUS), delivering better power conversion rates than multiple independent power supplies.

 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: Fully support IPv4/IPv6, MPLS, VXLAN and modern protocols

Expansion capabilities include:

- 4 available network module slots

- StackWise-480 stacking technology support

- Upgrade paths to Network Advantage or DNA Essentials licensing

The sole consideration involves power load balancing when stacking PoE units.

 Software Support Lifecycle

Cisco provides identical software maintenance for both platforms:

- Initial Software: Ships with IOS-XE 16.9 or newer

- Update Schedule: Receives identical maintenance releases and security patches

- License Upgrades: Equivalent upgrade paths available

- End-of-Life: Anticipated simultaneous product lifecycle conclusion

Administrators should note that memory-intensive operations (like full packet capture) may encounter performance limitations on the C9300L-48P-4G-E due to its hardware configuration.

 Procurement Recommendations

Based on our analysis, we recommend:

Choose C9300L-48P-4G-E when:

- Deploying numerous PoE devices currently or in roadmap

- Cable simplification is a priority

- Data center space is constrained

- Long-term energy efficiency matters

Opt for C9300-48T-E when:

- PoE functionality is completely unnecessary

- Running memory-intensive network services

- Operating under strict budget constraints without PoE needs

- Planning near-term upgrades to more advanced switches

For most hybrid work environments, the C9300L-48P-4G-E offers superior overall value. However, the C9300-48T-E presents better cost efficiency for networks without PoE requirements.

Final decisions should align with actual business needs and technology roadmaps rather than pure hardware specifications. We recommend conducting thorough PoE load assessments and 3-5 year network planning before procurement.