---
title: "100G Form Factor Fragmentation: CFP, CFP2, CFP4, QSFP28, and What's Actually Dead"
slug: "cfp2-cfp4-qsfp28-form-factor-migration-100g"
type: analysis
category: "Transceivers & Form Factors"
tags: ["CFP", "CFP2", "CFP4", "QSFP28", "OSFP", "100G", "form factor", "carrier", "enterprise"]
seo_focus_keyword: "CFP2 CFP4 QSFP28 100G form factor comparison"
---

When 100G first came to market around 2010–2012, there were four separate form factor efforts underway simultaneously, each backed by different parts of the industry with different design priorities. The result was a fragmentation problem that still echoes through procurement decisions today: a 100G transceiver is not a transceiver, it's a family of six distinct physical formats, several of which are technically alive but commercially marginal, and the correct choice depends on who you ask and what decade their equipment was designed in.

## How CFP, CFP2, and CFP4 Differ

CFP (C Form-factor Pluggable) was the first standardized 100G form factor, defined by the CFP MSA starting around 2009. The original CFP module is enormous by modern standards: 144.75mm × 82mm × 13.6mm, drawing up to 32 watts. The physical size was driven by the optical and electrical component technology available in 2009—coherent DSP chips were large, high-power, and required substantial heat management. CFP was designed primarily for carrier coherent applications: 100G DWDM, OTN transport, submarine-class interfaces.

CFP2 arrived around 2013, roughly half the volume of CFP at 54mm wide, with a power budget reduced to 12W for most applications. The density improvement was significant: a linecard that could hold two CFP modules could now hold four CFP2 modules. This made CFP2 the preferred format for next-generation coherent linecards—Cisco's NCS 5500, Ciena's 6500, Nokia's 1830 PSS—and it remains the dominant form factor for 100G and 200G coherent applications in carrier gear today.

CFP4 is smaller still: 40mm wide, roughly quarter the size of the original CFP, with a power limit of about 6W for non-coherent applications. CFP4 was designed as a high-density client-side form factor, primarily for 100GBASE-LR4 and 100GBASE-ER4 in campus and metro applications. The market timing was unfortunate: by the time CFP4 production volumes were sufficient to drive prices down to competitive levels, QSFP28 had captured most of the enterprise market and CFP4 was left without a clear constituency.

## QSFP28: Why It Won the Enterprise Market

QSFP28 is mechanically identical to QSFP+ (40G), which is mechanically identical to QSFP (also 40G) from the original Finisar design. The dimensional continuity was a deliberate strategy: equipment vendors could design linecards with QSFP28 ports that were backward compatible with QSFP+ optics for 40G applications, giving customers a migration path from 40G to 100G without replacing linecards.

At 18.35mm × 72.4mm and a maximum power budget of 3.5W for standard applications (up to 7W for enhanced thermal variants), QSFP28 offered density that CFP4 couldn't match—36 ports per 1U linecard in standard designs versus 20 ports per 1U for CFP4. When the 802.3bm standard formalized 100GBASE-SR4 and 100GBASE-LR4 in QSFP28 packaging in 2015, the enterprise market converged rapidly.

By 2018, QSFP28 was the standard form factor for enterprise 100G deployments. CFP4 never recovered a distinct market position. Today, CFP4 transceivers are manufactured in small quantities for specific applications—predominantly 100GBASE-LR4 in older chassis that were designed with CFP4 slots—and prices are higher than QSFP28 equivalents because of low volume, not because of superior technology.

## What's Still Being Shipped in Carrier vs. Enterprise

The carrier/enterprise divergence is the key to understanding why multiple form factors persist.

In carrier optical transport networks, CFP2 is actively shipping in significant volume in 2024 and 2025. The reason is coherent optics. 100G and 200G coherent transceivers for DWDM transport remain CFP2 form factor because coherent DSP implementations require power budgets (typically 12–18W) that QSFP28 can't handle thermally. The coherent optical market has been slow to adopt smaller form factors for high-power applications—CFP2-DCO (Digital Coherent Optic) modules from Ciena, Acacia (now Cisco), and II-VI (now Coherent Corp.) are still the standard for backbone transport provisioning.

The picture is changing with CFP2-ACO (Analog Coherent Optic) and more recently with QSFP-DD and OSFP coherent solutions for 400G ZR applications. But for 100G coherent in existing carrier linecards, CFP2 is not going away on any near-term horizon—the installed base of CFP2-capable router linecards is enormous, and operators have no economic incentive to replace functioning infrastructure.

In enterprise networks, CFP, CFP2, and CFP4 are effectively legacy formats except in specific legacy equipment contexts. Any new enterprise purchase for 100G short-reach or medium-reach applications should be QSFP28 unless the hardware forces otherwise. The pricing difference is significant: a QSFP28 100GBASE-LR4 typically runs 30–40% less than an equivalent CFP4 module due to volume economics, and a QSFP28 100GBASE-SR4 is typically under €100 at market rates versus €200+ for a CFP4 equivalent.

## Where OSFP and QSFP-DD Fit

OSFP (Octal Small Form-factor Pluggable) and QSFP-DD (Quad Small Form-factor Pluggable Double Density) are the current 400G form factors that are increasingly relevant for 100G discussions. Both support 400G via 8×50G lanes, but both can also operate in breakout configurations at 4×100G.

QSFP-DD was designed with backward compatibility to QSFP28 in mind—a QSFP-DD port can accept a QSFP28 module in most implementations, which provides a migration path similar to QSFP28's backward compatibility with QSFP+. OSFP is larger and has higher power budget (15W vs. 12W for QSFP-DD) but does not accept QSFP28 modules. The OSFP vs. QSFP-DD competition is still ongoing in 400G infrastructure, with Arista and Cisco favoring QSFP-DD while Juniper's QFX platforms support both.

For 100G applications specifically, neither OSFP nor QSFP-DD adds anything over QSFP28—the cost savings from running native QSFP28 100G optics are clear. Where OSFP and QSFP-DD become relevant is in the migration from 100G to 400G without chassis replacement.

## The Practical Implication for Procurement

When you're ordering replacement optics for existing infrastructure, the form factor question is answered by the hardware: if the slot is CFP2, you need CFP2. The interesting decisions arise during new deployments or upgrades.

For any new 100G switch/router deployment in enterprise, QSFP28 is the unambiguous answer—the density, pricing, and ecosystem support are superior to all alternatives. For carrier coherent applications, CFP2 or CFP2-DCO remains the practical standard for linecards designed in the 2015–2022 window. For new 400G-capable infrastructure that needs to handle 100G in the near term, QSFP-DD slots with QSFP28 backward compatibility offer the best migration path.

The CFP form factor ecosystem isn't dead—it's stratified. CFP2 coherent is a healthy market with active development. CFP4 is a narrow market for legacy deployments. Original CFP is end-of-life for new designs and increasingly difficult to source at scale. Treating "CFP" as a monolith misses the carrier/enterprise split that explains why these form factors have such different trajectories.
