QWERTY vs Colemak vs Dvorak for Faster Typing

The theoretical case for alternative layouts

QWERTY was designed in the 1870s for mechanical typewriters, with key placement influenced by mechanical constraints that no longer exist. Alternative layouts like Dvorak (1936) and Colemak (2006) were designed using frequency analysis of English text to minimize finger travel distance and maximize home row usage. Before considering a switch, check your current baseline with our Typing Speed test.

Layout	Year	Home Row Keys	Finger Distance vs QWERTY	Ubiquity
QWERTY	1873	ASDFGHJKL;	Baseline	Universal
Dvorak	1936	AOEUIDHTNS	~20–30% less	Niche (~0.2%)
Colemak	2006	ARSTDHNEIO	~20% less	Small (~0.1%)
Workman	2010	ASHTGYNEOI	~15% less	Very niche

What the research actually shows

The theoretical advantages of Dvorak and Colemak are real in terms of biomechanics. The WPM advantages in practice are much more contested.

The 1956 US Navy study - often misquoted

Historically significant

The US Navy sponsored a study in 1956 claiming Dvorak typists could reach proficiency in 52 hours vs. 119 hours for QWERTY retraining. This study is frequently cited by Dvorak advocates. However, the methodology has been widely criticized: the study was conducted by August Dvorak himself (the layout's inventor), had no control group, and has never been replicated with equivalent results. A 1996 analysis by Earle Strong for the Government Services Administration found no meaningful WPM advantage for Dvorak over QWERTY when all factors are controlled.

Modern controlled studies: modest advantages

Best current evidence

More recent controlled studies find that Colemak and Dvorak do produce modestly faster peak typing speeds for new learners starting from scratch - approximately 5–10% faster ceiling under controlled conditions. However, for experienced QWERTY typists switching as adults, the picture is very different: the transition cost is enormous (1–2 years to fully recover pre-switch WPM), and the eventual peak advantage over skilled QWERTY is small (5–15 WPM at most).

The real-world cost of switching

Underreported

Switch advocates focus on the long-term benefits and understate the transition cost. An experienced QWERTY typist at 70 WPM who switches to Colemak should expect 3–6 months at below 30 WPM, 6–12 months to reach their previous speed, and 12–24 months to surpass it meaningfully. During this period, every device they use with a default QWERTY layout creates confusion. Shared computers, smartphones, and work machines all become obstacles.

Who should actually switch layouts?

Consider switching if:

• You have RSI or repetitive strain symptoms from QWERTY
• You are a new typist starting fresh (under 30 WPM)
• You primarily use one personal device
• You are willing to invest 1–2 years of disruption
• Your goal is maximum long-term comfort over speed

Do not switch if:

• You type professionally and cannot afford speed loss
• You use shared or multiple computers regularly
• You are already above 70 WPM on QWERTY
• Your primary goal is WPM (not ergonomics)
• You want results in less than 12 months

The Colemak advantage over Dvorak for switchers

If you are going to switch, Colemak is generally recommended over Dvorak for experienced QWERTY typists for three reasons: it keeps many QWERTY shortcuts (Ctrl-Z, X, C, V) in their original positions; it requires fewer key changes overall (17 vs. 33 for Dvorak); and anecdotal and forum evidence suggests a faster adaptation period. Colemak's home row also aligns better with the QWERTY motor programs for the left hand specifically. However, neither layout has been proven to deliver dramatically faster peak WPM than optimally-trained QWERTY for most typists.

The honest verdict most communities don't give you

The bottom line

For most people already proficient on QWERTY, switching layouts will cost you 1–2 years of productivity disruption for a gain of 5–10 WPM at most. If you spend that same time on structured QWERTY practice following the methods in our typing speed improvement guide, you will achieve more WPM gain with no disruption. Layout switching makes sense for ergonomic reasons (RSI) or for people starting from scratch - not as a WPM optimization for skilled QWERTY typists.

The world's fastest typists overwhelmingly use QWERTY. Not because QWERTY is theoretically optimal - it isn't - but because the biomechanical advantages of Dvorak and Colemak are smaller than advocates claim, and because the deep familiarity built over decades of QWERTY practice more than compensates for the layout's imperfections.