Dvorak vs QWERTY: Which Keyboard Layout Is Actually Faster?

Reading time: approximately 7 minutes

The Dvorak vs QWERTY debate has been running since August Dvorak introduced his alternative layout in 1936. The claim: QWERTY was designed to prevent typewriter jams, not to be ergonomic or fast. Dvorak was designed with letter frequency in mind, putting the most common English letters on the home row. So is it actually faster?

The honest answer is: probably marginally, but the evidence is weaker than Dvorak advocates claim, and for most people the difference is not worth the switching cost.

What QWERTY was actually designed for

The popular claim that QWERTY was designed to slow typists down is an oversimplification. QWERTY was designed in the 1870s by Christopher Latham Sholes for mechanical typewriters. The layout does place common key pairs away from adjacent hammers (to reduce jamming), but it was also refined based on telegraph operators' feedback and is reasonably ergonomic within the mechanical constraints of the era. "QWERTY was designed to slow you down" is a myth — it was designed to be practical under physical constraints that no longer exist.

What Dvorak was actually designed for

August Dvorak and his brother-in-law William Dealey patented the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard in 1936. The design was based on letter frequency analysis of English. Key design principles:

• The most common English letters (A, O, E, U, I, D, H, T, N, S) are on the home row
• The right hand handles more keystrokes (English is right-hand dominant in typing)
• Common letter sequences alternate hands to allow parallel finger preparation
• Less common letters (Q, J, K, X, Z) are on the hardest-to-reach keys

By these metrics, Dvorak objectively requires less finger movement for English text. Studies suggest the average Dvorak typist moves their fingers approximately 1 mile per 8-hour day, compared to 12–16 miles for QWERTY typists. Whether that translates into more speed is a different question.

What the research actually shows

The most cited independent study — a 1996 meta-analysis by Earle Strong — found no statistically significant speed advantage for Dvorak over QWERTY among trained typists. This is often cited by QWERTY defenders. However, Strong's methodology has been criticised, and the study used relatively slow typists as subjects.

Counter-evidence: Barbara Blackburn's typing speed world record of 212 WPM was set on Dvorak. Many competitive typists who have switched report eventual speed gains, particularly above 100 WPM where the reduced finger travel becomes more impactful.

The balanced conclusion: Dvorak may offer speed and comfort advantages for typists above 100–120 WPM. Below that threshold, the difference is small enough that the months-long re-learning cost is almost certainly not worth it for pure speed purposes.

Colemak: the practical alternative

Colemak, introduced in 2006, is a third option that has gained significant following in the typing community. Its key advantages over Dvorak:

• Only 17 keys move from QWERTY (vs. nearly all keys in Dvorak), making it significantly easier to learn for QWERTY users
• ZXCV shortcuts stay in place (cut, copy, paste) — a major practical advantage
• Similar ergonomic principles to Dvorak: most common letters on home row, frequent bigrams alternate hands

For someone seriously considering a layout switch, Colemak is typically the more pragmatic choice than Dvorak.

Should you switch from QWERTY?

Here is the honest breakdown by situation:

For the vast majority of typists, the best path to higher WPM is better QWERTY technique, not a layout switch. If you are under 80 WPM, investing time in touch typing and daily practice on QWERTY will produce far more gains than a layout switch. Read our guide on how to type faster for proven QWERTY improvement techniques.