---
title: "400G DR4 vs. FR4 vs. LR4: The Reach-Cost-Fiber Tradeoff Matrix"
slug: "400g-dr4-fr4-lr4-comparison"
category: "Hardware Selection"
tags: ["400G", "DR4", "FR4", "LR4", "QSFP-DD", "OSFP", "campus", "DCI", "fiber selection"]
seo_focus_keyword: "400G DR4 FR4 LR4 comparison distance tradeoff"
word_count_target: 1200
difficulty: intermediate
---

If you've tried to spec 400G transceivers recently and found yourself staring at a confusing alphabet soup of DR4, FR4, LR4, PLR4, and related variants, you're not alone. IEEE and MSA committees have produced a proliferation of 400G standards that overlap in confusing ways, and vendor datasheets don't always make the tradeoffs obvious. The honest answer is that each of these has a specific application niche, and buying the wrong one — usually over-speccing for reach you don't need — costs real money at scale.

**The three mainstream variants and what they actually are**

400GBASE-DR4 (IEEE 802.3bs) uses four parallel single-mode fiber lanes, each carrying 100G using NRZ modulation at 1310nm using four distinct wavelengths in a very narrow band. The "D" refers to "Datacenter Reach" — the specification target is 500 meters. The physical interface uses MPO-12 connectors with 8 fibers (4 TX, 4 RX) or dual MPO-8 configurations depending on the cabling plant. Maximum optical power at the transmitter is approximately +3 dBm per lane, with a receiver sensitivity around −6.9 dBm per lane.

400GBASE-FR4 uses four wavelengths (CWDM4: 1271, 1291, 1311, 1331 nm) multiplexed onto a single fiber pair with duplex LC connectors. Each wavelength carries 100G, and the four wavelengths are combined at the transmitter by a thin-film WDM element and separated at the receiver by the same. Target reach is 2 kilometers over OS2 single-mode fiber. TX power is similar to DR4 per wavelength, but the WDM element introduces approximately 1.5–2 dB of additional insertion loss compared to a direct parallel approach.

400GBASE-LR4 is the extended version of FR4: same CWDM4 wavelength plan, same duplex LC fiber interface, same WDM multiplexing architecture, but specified to 10 kilometers. Achieving 10km requires higher transmitter power and better receiver sensitivity than the 2km FR4 specification. LR4 modules are significantly more expensive than FR4, primarily due to the higher-power laser requirements and tighter fabrication tolerances.

There are also 400GBASE-PLR4 (parallel 500m using PSM4 wavelength plan, eight fibers) and 400GBASE-LR8 (eight wavelengths, 10km, but more commonly seen in 400G CWDM8 MSA form), but for most practical datacenter and campus deployments, DR4/FR4/LR4 covers the relevant options.

**The cost differential at volume**

Numbers change, but the relative cost structure has been consistent. As of 2025–2026 street pricing in reasonable volumes (50+ units):

| Module | Interface | Reach | Approx. Street Price |
|---|---|---|---|
| 400G DR4 | MPO-12, parallel | 500 m | $350–$550 |
| 400G FR4 | Duplex LC, CWDM4 | 2 km | $600–$900 |
| 400G LR4 | Duplex LC, CWDM4 | 10 km | $1,200–$1,800 |

The DR4-to-FR4 price gap reflects the WDM multiplexing components inside the FR4 module — each thin-film filter element is precisely manufactured, and WDM integration at this density is more expensive than parallel fiber. The FR4-to-LR4 gap reflects the higher-power laser components required for 10km reach.

When you're deploying 200+ transceivers in a spine-leaf refresh, these differences are meaningful. A fabric that could use DR4 but was speced with FR4 "for future flexibility" wastes $50,000–$100,000 in upfront hardware costs. The flexibility rarely materializes — if you later need longer reach, you replace the modules; you don't reuse FR4 modules in a DR4 application because the fiber plant is parallel anyway.

**The fiber plant decision drives everything**

This is the constraint that datasheets underemphasize. DR4 requires parallel fiber: eight individual single-mode fibers (or MPO-12 assembly) for each link. FR4 and LR4 require a single fiber pair — two fibers, duplex LC connectors, exactly what most enterprise fiber plants already have in place.

If your datacenter was built with a structured cabling plant using LC duplex patch panels and OS2 trunk cable, FR4 and LR4 are the natural choices. Every port is a direct cable run, and your existing fiber management infrastructure handles it without change.

If you're building a new fabric from scratch, or have already moved to MPO-based trunk cabling, DR4 is the cost-effective option for intra-datacenter distances. MPO12/MTP trunk cables with pinned and unpinned ends, breakout cassettes at the patch panel, and 8-fiber allocation per 400G DR4 link — this is a modern high-density cabling approach that many new datacenter builds have already standardized on.

**Decision tree for the common scenarios**

Intra-datacenter, same building, distances 10–500 meters: DR4 is the correct answer. New builds should standardize on MPO parallel fiber cabling to enable DR4. Cost savings over FR4 are real, and 500m is sufficient for any intra-row or cross-aisle switch-to-switch path in a standard enterprise or colocation datacenter footprint.

Campus interconnect or building-to-building links under 2km: FR4 with existing LC duplex OS2 infrastructure. If you already have a fiber-optic building ring with LC duplex patch panels, FR4 drops into that infrastructure cleanly with no fiber plant changes. The WDM cost premium is justified by eliminating fiber plant modifications.

Metro or extended campus links 2–10km: LR4 is the relevant option. At these distances, the laser power requirements preclude DR4 and make FR4 marginal. LR4 at +3 to +5 dBm per wavelength handles 10km with comfortable margin on OS2 fiber.

Beyond 10km: 400G coherent (400ZR, OpenZR+) is the appropriate solution. LR4 at 10km is close to its optical power budget limit, and attempting to extend it further with optical amplification runs into dispersion and wavelength-specific issues with the CWDM4 channel plan.

**The breakout use case changes the calculus**

A significant fraction of 400G spine-switch port usage involves breakout: one 400G port broken out to four 100G ports for leaf-switch or server uplinks. In this scenario, the fiber plant question takes on new dimensions.

400G DR4 to 4×100G DR breakout uses a breakout MPO-12 to 4× duplex LC fan-out cable. Each 100G lane runs on a single fiber pair to a separate device. This is cleanly supported and very common in DCI and hyperscale deployments.

400G FR4 breakout to 4×100G is more complex because the four wavelengths are WDM-multiplexed. Breakout requires a WDM demultiplexer module to split the wavelengths to separate fiber pairs — this is supported via passive CWDM demux cassettes, but adds cost and complexity compared to the DR4 parallel breakout.

If a significant portion of your 400G ports will be used as 4×100G breakouts, DR4 is strongly preferred from a cabling simplicity standpoint. The parallel fiber architecture maps cleanly to the breakout topology.

**One thing that surprises people: the LR4 launch power limitation**

400GBASE-LR4 specifies per-wavelength launch power of approximately 2–4.5 dBm — higher than FR4 to achieve 10km. This creates a potential issue if your fiber path is significantly shorter than 10km. Connecting two LR4 modules with a 200m patch cord creates a received power near the receiver overload threshold, which generates optical saturation and link errors. LR4 modules in short-reach applications typically require an attenuator at the receive port — usually a 5–10 dB inline attenuator on the LC connector — to bring received power within spec.

This is well-known but frequently forgotten during lab setups and short-distance cross-connects. If your 400G LR4 link shows high BER or won't link at all over a short fiber run, check the receive power before you start blaming the module.

The three main 400G variants — DR4, FR4, LR4 — map cleanly to three application domains: intra-datacenter, campus, and metro. Match the module to the distance and fiber plant, do the cost math at volume, and resist the temptation to over-spec "just in case."
