QWERTY vs. Dvorak: Does Keyboard Layout Affect Typing Speed?

Dvorak advocates claim it's faster and more ergonomic than QWERTY. QWERTY defenders say the difference is overstated and not worth the switching cost. Both sides have a point. Here's what the evidence actually shows.

The Case for Dvorak

The Dvorak Simplified Keyboard was designed in the 1930s by August Dvorak with the explicit goal of reducing finger travel and increasing typing efficiency. The design puts the most common English letters on the home row, alternates hands more frequently, and places less work on the pinky fingers.

By the numbers, Dvorak does reduce finger travel. Studies measuring finger distance per word consistently find Dvorak typists move their fingers less than QWERTY typists for the same text.

Some Dvorak typists are extremely fast — the current world record holders have used both layouts at elite levels. Dvorak is represented at the top of typing speed competitions.

What the Research Actually Shows

The honest summary: the evidence for Dvorak producing faster typists is weak.

The most rigorous study on the topic (a U.S. Navy study from 1944, frequently cited by Dvorak advocates) was later scrutinized and found to have methodological problems — it was conducted by Dvorak himself.

More recent controlled studies find either no significant speed difference between experienced users of each layout, or modest advantages for Dvorak that are within the range of individual variation.

The confounding factor is selection bias. People who switch to Dvorak are highly motivated and tend to practice deliberately. They'd likely improve significantly on QWERTY too with the same effort.

The Switching Cost Is Real

If you type 70 WPM on QWERTY, switching to Dvorak will drop you to 10–20 WPM for weeks. Full recovery to your original speed typically takes 3–6 months. Surpassing your original speed on Dvorak takes longer still.

During that period, every task that requires typing takes significantly longer. Many people who start the switch abandon it before recovering their speed and end up with a confused technique on both layouts.

The switching cost is the most underestimated part of the Dvorak argument.

What About Colemak and Other Layouts?

Colemak is a more recent alternative that modifies fewer keys than Dvorak (only 17 vs. QWERTY's 0), making it easier to switch while retaining some efficiency improvements. It's designed to have a lower transition cost than Dvorak while still improving common key placement.

Workman, BÉPO (for French), and other layouts exist for more specific use cases. None of them have enough users to have strong speed data comparable to QWERTY.

Who Should Consider Switching?

Probably worth it: People with repetitive strain injuries or chronic wrist/finger pain, where ergonomic layout changes are part of a treatment approach. The reduced finger travel in Dvorak has a more defensible benefit for injury prevention than for raw speed.

Probably not worth it: Anyone who wants to type faster and is currently healthy. The speed gains, if any, don't justify the months-long productivity loss. You'll improve more on QWERTY with the same practice investment.

Special case: Programmers should note that many keyboard shortcuts (Ctrl+Z, Ctrl+X, Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V) are optimized for QWERTY hand position. Dvorak and Colemak often require remapping these or using awkward positions.

The Bottom Line

QWERTY won by historical accident, not by being the best design. Dvorak is probably better ergonomically. But for most people, the speed difference is small enough — and the switching cost high enough — that staying on QWERTY and practicing deliberately will produce better results than switching layouts.

If you want to improve your typing speed, check your current baseline with a free typing speed test and focus on technique and deliberate practice before considering a layout change.