> The TI parts seem a bit expensive in small quantities, but the Microchip and SiliLabs parts are like $6-7 in single units from Digi-Key. Is it just that the dev kits are in the >$50 price range which puts people off compared to ESP32?

It helps to separate hobbyist use from professional product development.

The hobby market is driven by quick, cheap, and easy: low up-front cost, abundant tutorials, and inexpensive dev boards. In that context, ESP32 shines, and expensive dev kits can be a real psychological barrier.

For commercial, industrial, or professional products, however, small-quantity pricing is often irrelevant. Sample or single-unit prices rarely reflect real production costs. Without getting into specifics, it’s common for the ratio between sample pricing and volume pricing to be 10× or more.

A part that costs $20 in onesies can easily be a $2 part at scale. This doesn’t apply universally, but it does mean that judging a device’s suitability for mass production based on Digi-Key single-unit pricing is usually a mistake.

There are also system-level considerations beyond the MCU’s line item price. For example, the RP2040 could be very inexpensive (around $0.50 in modest volumes when we used it), but that ignores the required external flash, which adds cost, board space, and supply-chain complexity. More importantly for many products, it offers no meaningful code security (the external flash can simply be read out—which can be a non-starter in commercial designs).

Guaranteed long-term availability can be crucially important as well; with design support requirements in commercial/industrial settings often extending past ten year timelines.

Tooling and ecosystem maturity also matter. At the time, the RP2040 toolchain was notably hostile to Windows, and Raspberry Pi support reflected that attitude. In reality, most product development (EE, MCAD, manufacturing, test, PLM/ERP) is Windows-centric. Asking an organization to bolt a Linux-only toolchain onto an otherwise Windows-based workflow just to save a dollar on an MCU is rarely a winning argument.

So while cost absolutely matters, it’s often not the dominant factor in professional design. Security, tooling, vendor support, long-term availability, and integration into existing workflows frequently outweigh a few dollars of MCU price, particularly once production pricing enters the picture.

> What's missing from these parts which makes people reach for ESP32 by default instead?

I didn’t directly answer that question before.

Strictly speaking, nothing essential is missing from many of these other parts. In fact, in professional contexts they often have better documentation, support, longevity guarantees, or security features than ESP32.

One of the biggest differentiators is simply pricing strategy. Espressif has used aggressively low pricing (what many would reasonably call predatory pricing) to capture mindshare and market share. That playbook is hardly new; it’s been used successfully across industries for decades. Ultra-cheap silicon, combined with inexpensive dev boards, dramatically lowers the barrier to entry and makes ESP32 the default choice, especially for hobbyists and startups.

Price pressure also creates a feedback loop: more users means more tutorials, libraries, examples, and community support, which in turn makes the platform feel easier and safer to choose, even when alternatives might be technically superior.

For teams operating in cost-driven markets, this can become unavoidable. If your product lives or dies on BOM cost, reaching for the cheapest viable part may not be optional. I spent several years in that environment myself, and while it’s a valid constraint, it tends to push decisions toward short-term cost optimization rather than long-term engineering value.

So the answer isn’t that these parts lack features, it’s that ESP32 combines good-enough capabilities with exceptionally aggressive pricing and a massive ecosystem, which together make it the default choice in many contexts.