QWERTY vs Dvorak vs Colemak
Short answer: QWERTY is the universal default and costs nothing to keep; Dvorak is the radical redesign, patented in 1936, that puts frequent English letters on the home row; Colemak, from 2006, changes only 17 keys from QWERTY and keeps common shortcuts in place, making it the easiest switch. No layout is proven universally fastest — claims for both alternatives are debated — so the honest verdict is personal: the best layout is the one you will actually practise until it is automatic. Klavaro includes all three, so you can test each in the same tutor.
Three layouts, three philosophies
QWERTY was created in the 1870s by Christopher Sholes for early typewriters, and it became the default through sheer installed base: every school, office and shared computer assumes it. Dvorak, designed by August Dvorak and William Dealey, asked what a layout built purely around English letter frequency and hand alternation would look like — vowels on the left home row, common consonants on the right. Colemak, released by Shai Coleman in 2006, accepted that most people will never endure a total relearn, and optimised for transition instead: improve the worst of QWERTY, move as little as possible.
| Factor | QWERTY | Dvorak | Colemak |
|---|---|---|---|
| Origin | 1870s, Christopher Sholes, typewriter era | Designed by August Dvorak and William Dealey, patented 1936 | Released 2006 by Shai Coleman |
| Keys changed vs QWERTY | — (the default) | Most letter keys move | Only 17 keys move |
| Shortcuts Z/X/C/V | Standard positions | Move | Stay in place |
| Learning curve | Already known by most typists | Steepest — near-total relearn | Gentler — partial relearn |
| In Klavaro | Built in, many national variants | Built in, several variants | Built in as Colemak (US) |
| Best for | Compatibility everywhere | Committed switchers who want a clean redesign | Switchers who want an easier transition |
Origin and design goals
The table tells the story compactly. QWERTY’s goal was mechanical and historical, and its dominance today is about compatibility, not design merit. Dvorak’s goal was efficiency from first principles, accepting maximum disruption. Colemak’s goal was pragmatic improvement — home-row emphasis and better finger patterns, constrained by keeping 17-key distance from QWERTY and leaving the Z, X, C and V shortcut cluster untouched. None of these goals is foolish; they simply optimise for different people.
Learning curve: the cost side of the ledger
Switching layouts means relearning, and the cost is real. Most switchers report weeks to reach basic competence on a new layout and months to recover their full previous speed. Dvorak sits at the expensive end: most keys move, shortcuts scatter, and your QWERTY intuition deserts you almost completely at first. Colemak is deliberately cheaper — familiar keys stay familiar, and only the moved set needs drilling — though “easier” still means weeks of clumsy typing, not a weekend project. Staying on QWERTY costs nothing, which is exactly why it wins by default for anyone whose technique, not layout, is the actual bottleneck.
Guides to each switch, with step plans, are in our articles on learning Dvorak and learning Colemak.
What the evidence does and does not say
Both alternative layouts come with enthusiastic efficiency claims, and both sets of claims are debated. There is no conclusive scientific proof that Dvorak or Colemak is universally faster than QWERTY for all typists. Studies conflict, and the biggest variable in every comparison is the typist: their training, their accuracy and how much they practise. It is entirely possible to become very fast on any of the three layouts, and quite slow on any of them with poor technique. Be sceptical of any article — including ones selling courses — that quotes a precise speed advantage as settled fact.
What alternatives plausibly offer is comfort: less finger travel, more home-row work, better hand alternation. Many long-term switchers report exactly that, and their satisfaction is genuine evidence — of comfort and preference, which are legitimate reasons to switch. Just do not let a comfort argument masquerade as a proven speed guarantee.
Layout support in Klavaro
Klavaro ships many built-in layouts — QWERTY in multiple national variants, Dvorak variants, Colemak (US), AZERTY, QWERTZ, Jtsuken for Russian, and more — and the layout is chosen inside the program, independently of your operating system. That makes comparison practical: you can run the Basic Course on Dvorak for two weeks, try Colemak for two weeks, and keep notes on which felt learnable, all in one free tutor. If none of the built-ins fit, Klavaro also has a custom layout editor for defining your own variant — see our guide to the Klavaro keyboard layout editor.
Honest verdicts by reader type
- You type fine and feel no strain: stay on QWERTY. Spend your practice time on accuracy and technique instead — the return is faster and certain.
- You want the gentlest credible switch: choose Colemak. Seventeen moved keys, shortcuts intact, and a design modern enough to feel purposeful.
- You want the full redesign and accept the cost: choose Dvorak. Its home-row logic is elegant, its community is decades deep, and its learning curve is the price of admission.
- You work on many shared or locked-down machines: QWERTY, realistically. An alternative layout you cannot install is a hobby, not a tool.
- You are a beginner: learn touch typing itself first, on whichever layout you will use daily. Beginners who start directly on Colemak or Dvorak avoid a later switch, but only if that layout will be available on the machines they actually use.
Whichever you choose, the method is the same: structured course first, accuracy before speed, short daily sessions. Klavaro is free from our download page, works offline, and lets the layout experiment happen inside the tutor before you commit your whole system to it.
The closing truth
Layout debates have run for ninety years because all three layouts work. Typists defend the one they invested in, and the investment — thousands of practised keystrokes — is the real source of speed. So pick by cost and comfort, commit fully, and practise daily. The best layout is the one you will practise.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is fastest: QWERTY, Dvorak or Colemak?
No layout is proven universally fastest. Efficiency claims for Dvorak and Colemak are debated, and there is no conclusive scientific proof either beats QWERTY for everyone. In practice, a well-practised typist on any of the three will out-type a poorly practised typist on any other. Training matters more than layout.
Which alternative layout is easier to learn, Dvorak or Colemak?
Colemak, for most people. It changes only 17 keys from QWERTY and keeps the Z, X, C and V shortcuts in place, while Dvorak rearranges most of the alphabet. Most switchers still report weeks to basic competence and months to full previous speed on either layout — Colemak’s curve is gentler, not absent.
Can I try Dvorak and Colemak before switching my computer?
Yes. Klavaro includes QWERTY variants, Dvorak variants and Colemak (US) as built-in layouts, and the layout is selected inside the program independently of your operating system. You can work through lessons on each layout in the tutor and only change your system settings if you decide to commit.
Should a complete beginner start on an alternative layout?
It can work, since a beginner has no QWERTY muscle memory to unlearn — but only choose Dvorak or Colemak if that layout will be available on the machines you use every day. Otherwise, learning touch typing on QWERTY first is the pragmatic path; technique transfers, and you can always switch later with open eyes.