Keyboard Reviewing Criteria

I try to think of myself as a fairly objective person, but as a human raised in the era of Amazon and Uber, my typical “one through five star” reviewing criteria have looked something like this:

• 1 Star – Potentially a complete scam. Not what was described. Does not function or barely functions.
• 2 Star – Incredibly low quality. Misleading or unscrupulous advertising. Technically, it’s a product that does what it says.
• 3 Star – Really hard to end up here. Probably a decent product but a horrible value. Perhaps terrible construction or longevity.
• 4 Star – Product was nearly perfect, but had a few glaring issues that just had to be called out and couldn’t be overlooked.
• 5 Star – Product is perfect or nearly perfect. As described and does what it says. Good or great value. Arrived in one piece and performs as expected.

Obviously, this is not a truly objective set of criteria. It lacks any real measurability or objectivity. However, since the enthusiast keyboard field is still growing, defining a base set of criteria is important, and ensuring they remain at the forefront of all reviews is essential. As new criteria are added in the future, a new post will be written to explain the changes. While old reviews won’t be retroactively adjusted, future evaluations will adhere to the most current standards.

I have developed a formula for evaluating each item as objectively as possible. Each product is assessed on as many applicable criteria as possible, and for each criterion, the evaluation parameters are clearly defined. Importantly, reviewers are instructed to consider only the parameters provided for each criterion. For instance, when assessing case material choices, only the quality and type of material are considered—not the price or value.

For each reviewed item, the total assessed points (A) and the total possible points (P) are summed (criteria that do not apply to a particular item are omitted from the total). A raw review score (R) is then computed using the formula:

R = A / P

This raw score is converted into a star rating (S) with the following formula:

S = MIN(MAX(ROUND(R * 5), 1), 5)

Evaluation Criteria (Effective as of March 6, 2025)

1. Manufacturing

Material Choices

• PCB (2 possible points)
  • +1 if parts are all legitimate and not clones.
  • +0 if parts appear to be clones of decent quality.
  • -1 if parts appear to be of dubious quality.
  • +1 if the silk screening is well labeled and of good quality.
  • +0 if the silk screening lacks clear markings or is not present.
  • -1 if the silk screening is of poor quality or glaringly incorrect.
• Case (3 possible points)
  • +3 for rare, expensive, exotic, or hard-to-find materials (e.g., brass, gold, ceramic).
  • +2 for uncommon, difficult, or artisanal materials (e.g., steel, wood, very high-quality anodized aluminum, high-quality or specialty polycarbonate).
  • +1 for common, machined and/or durable materials (e.g., aluminum, extremely high-quality plastics).
  • +0 for common, mass-produced materials with limited durability (e.g., standard quality plastics, low-quality metals that bend easily).
  • -1 for low-quality, mass-produced materials prone to damage (e.g., low-quality plastics or non-artisanal materials that delaminate or deform easily).
• Dampening (2 possible points)
  • +2 if multiple high-quality dampening methods are used (gaskets, flex cuts, dampening foam, factory lubrication, etc.).
  • +1 if at least one high-quality dampening method is utilized.
  • +0 if no or low-quality sound deadening is used, though the board construction and acoustics allow for it.
  • -1 if no sound dampening is present and the construction leaves large hollows needing deadening.
• Key Switches (2 possible points)
  • +2 if high-quality, name-brand, factory-lubed switches are used.
  • +1 if high-quality clones or standard name-brand switches are used.
  • +0 if low to standard quality clones are used or no switches are provided.
  • -1 if poor quality switches are provided (e.g., switches that are crunchy, inconsistent, or broken).
• Key Caps (2 possible points)
  • +2 for rare, exotic, or designer keycap material choices (e.g., metal, acrylic, glass).
  • +1 for high-quality PBT or very high-quality ABS keycaps.
  • +0 for standard ABS or missing keycaps.
  • -1 for poor quality ABS or other plastics that are brittle, inconsistent, or prone to breakage.

Total: 11

Construction

• Soldering (1 possible point)
  • +1 for clean soldering with no significant flux residue.
  • +0 for somewhat dirty soldering that may include some flux or inconsistent joints.
  • -1 for pervasive poor soldering and excessive solder residue.
• Case Finish (2 possible points)
  • +2 for very high-quality finishes (artisan-level, ceramic coated, thick anodizing, consistently applied).
  • +1 for good quality finishes (durable paints, anodized metals).
  • +0 for unfinished surfaces.
  • -1 for poor or rushed finishes.
• Internal Construction (1 possible point)
  • +1 for all components put together cleanly without any obvious leftover tooling or debris.
  • +0 for minor internal blemishes, debris, or other imperfections.
  • -1 for sloppy, subpar, or damaged internal construction and other quality issues.
• Switch Construction & Mounting (1 possible point)
  • +1 for high-quality lubed and/or filmed switches, properly mounted and assembled.
  • +0 for unlubed switches properly mounted and assembled.
  • -1 for poorly constructed, scratchy, mushy, or defective switches.
• Key Caps (2 possible points)
  • +2 for high-quality printing, painting, or artisanal keycaps that are clean, clear, and consistent.
  • +1 for printing that is sharp and consistent across the entire set with no major tooling marks.
  • +0 for minor inconsistencies, blemishes, or tooling marks.
  • -1 for major inconsistencies, missing keycaps, defects, or tooling marks.
• Fasteners (2 possible points)
  • +2 for toolless construction.
  • +1 for consistent fasteners throughout the entire keyboard (a single type and length of screw).
  • +0 for using two or more fastener types.
  • -1 for using three or more different fastener types.
• External Construction (1 possible point)
  • +1 for a high-quality external finish, devoid of major gaps or inconsistent case lines.
  • +0 for a standard quality external finish where minor fit and finish blemishes are acceptable.
  • -1 for a poor-quality external finish (e.g., feet that break or come off easily, large inconsistent case gaps).

Total: 10

2. Packaging

Packaging is the first physical impression of the keyboard and plays a key role in the unboxing experience. Although packaging does not affect performance, it contributes to perceived quality and protects the product during shipping.

• Design & Durability (1 possible point)
  • +1 if the packaging features a premium, eye-catching design and uses high-quality materials.
  • 0 if the design is average and the materials offer basic protection.
  • -1 if the packaging appears flimsy or uses low-grade materials.
• Documentation & Accessories (1 possible point)
  • +1 if thorough, clear documentation is provided along with necessary accessories (e.g., keycap puller, extra screws).
  • 0 if documentation and accessories are minimal.
  • -1 if critical items are missing or the documentation is confusing.
• Environmental Considerations (1 possible point)
  • +1 if eco-friendly packaging is used without compromising quality.
  • 0 if environmental factors are not a priority.
  • -1 if the packaging is wasteful or poorly designed from a sustainability standpoint.

Total: 3

3. Ergonomics

Ergonomics evaluate how comfortable and natural the keyboard feels during extended use. This category examines the layout, key spacing, ergonomic features, and overall typing experience.

• Key Layout & Spacing (1 possible point)
  • +1 if the key layout minimizes finger fatigue with well-considered spacing.
  • 0 if the layout is standard without notable benefits.
  • -1 if the layout causes discomfort or awkward hand positioning.
• Ergonomic Features (1 possible point)
  • +1 if the keyboard includes thoughtful features such as an integrated wrist rest or adjustable tilt.
  • 0 if no additional ergonomic features are provided.
  • -1 if design choices actively contribute to user strain during prolonged use.
• Key Travel & Feedback (1 possible point)
  • +1 if key travel, actuation force, and tactile feedback all contribute to a comfortable typing experience.
  • 0 if these aspects are acceptable but not outstanding.
  • -1 if key feel is inconsistent or leads to fatigue.
• Noise & Acoustics (1 possible point)
  • +1 if the design minimizes unwanted noise and provides a satisfying acoustic profile.
  • 0 if noise levels are neutral.
  • -1 if the keyboard is either too noisy or too muted, detracting from the overall experience.

Total: 4

4. Moddability

Moddability reflects the keyboard’s flexibility in customization and repairability—a key aspect in a hobby where personal preferences and DIY modifications are common.

• Hot-Swappability & Component Access (1 possible point)
  • +1 if the keyboard supports hot-swappable switches or offers easy access to internal components.
  • 0 if modifications are possible but require more effort.
  • -1 if the keyboard is nearly impossible to modify or repair.
• Firmware Customization (1 possible point)
  • +1 if the keyboard includes customizable firmware that allows for key remapping, macros, and lighting adjustments.
  • 0 if customization options are limited to basic functions.
  • -1 if the firmware is locked down or severely restricted.
• Community & Manufacturer Support for Mods (1 possible point)
  • +1 if there is an active community and clear manufacturer guidance for modifications.
  • 0 if support exists but is inconsistent.
  • -1 if there is little to no support or available resources for modifications.

Total: 3

5. Aesthetic

Aesthetics cover the visual appeal and overall design philosophy of the keyboard. Although aesthetics do not affect functionality, they contribute to the product’s desirability and can be a significant factor for enthusiasts.

• Design & Visual Appeal (1 possible point)
  • +1 if the keyboard has a distinct and appealing design that stands out.
  • 0 if the design is standard and doesn’t evoke a strong reaction.
  • -1 if the design feels outdated or unappealing.
• Finish & Detailing (1 possible point)
  • +1 if the finish is of high quality with attention to detail in construction and surface treatments.
  • 0 if the finish is acceptable but lacks special attention.
  • -1 if the finish is uneven, prone to wear, or appears rushed.
• Overall Impression (1 possible point)
  • +1 if the keyboard’s aesthetic is cohesive and enhances its perceived quality.
  • 0 if the overall impression is neutral.
  • -1 if the aesthetic detracts from the overall quality and feel of the product.

Total: 3

6. Software & Connectivity

For keyboards offering software integration for customization, macros, or RGB lighting, the quality of the software is essential. This category evaluates usability, features, stability, and overall user experience.

• Usability & Interface (1 possible point)
  • +1 if the software interface is intuitive and user-friendly.
  • 0 if the interface is functional but not particularly innovative.
  • -1 if the software is confusing or difficult to navigate.
• Customization Options (1 possible point)
  • +1 if the software offers extensive customization (key remapping, macros, lighting control, etc.).
  • 0 if customization is limited to basic needs.
  • -1 if the software severely restricts user options.
• Stability & Updates (1 possible point)
  • +1 if the software is stable, regularly updated, and well-supported.
  • 0 if updates are infrequent yet the software remains functional.
  • -1 if the software is buggy, unstable, or appears abandoned.
• Source Code & Firmware Openness (2 possible points)
  • +2 if the manufacturer releases the full source code along with active developer facilitation (e.g., a robust community of contributors, frequent updates, and clear documentation).
  • +1 if the manufacturer releases the source code but without active developer support.
  • 0 if the keyboard is not based on QMK, VIA, or VIAL and no source code is provided.
  • -1 if the keyboard is based on QMK, VIA, or VIAL but the manufacturer fails to release the required source code.
• Single, Dual, or Tri-Mode Connectivity (2 possible points)
  • +2 if the keyboard supports 2.4 GHz wireless, Bluetooth, and wired connectivity.
  • +1 if the keyboard supports wired and one form of wireless connectivity.
  • +0 if the keyboard supports only wired connectivity.

Total: 7

7. Support

Support extends beyond the physical product to include the post-purchase experience. This covers customer service, warranty policies, and the level of community or developer engagement.

• Customer Service (1 possible point)
  • +1 if the manufacturer is known for prompt, helpful, and friendly customer service.
  • 0 if customer service is acceptable but not exceptional.
  • -1 if customer service is slow, unresponsive, or unhelpful.
• Warranty & Repair Policies (1 possible point)
  • +1 if the product comes with a clear, fair, and comprehensive warranty and repair policy.
  • 0 if the warranty is standard without extra benefits.
  • -1 if the warranty is vague, overly restrictive, or non-existent.
• Community & Developer Engagement (1 possible point)
  • +1 if the manufacturer actively supports a user community through forums, regular updates, and engagement initiatives.
  • 0 if community support exists but is minimal.
  • -1 if there is little to no communication or support from the manufacturer.

Total: 3

Final Thoughts on the Evaluation Framework

This review framework is designed to provide a balanced and as-objective-as-possible measure of keyboard quality. Each criterion is broken down into specific, measurable parameters, ensuring that evaluations remain systematic and consistent. By summing the total assessed points (A) against the total possible points (P) for each product, we derive a raw review score (R):

R = A / P

This raw score is then converted into a star rating (S) with the following formula:

S = MIN(MAX(ROUND(R * 5), 1), 5)

It is important to note that not every criterion will apply to every keyboard—only the relevant parameters are included in the overall score. As the enthusiast keyboard field evolves, these criteria may be revised or expanded in future posts. While past reviews will remain unchanged, new evaluations will adhere to the most current standards.

This structured approach minimizes subjective bias by focusing on measurable, clearly defined characteristics. Although personal taste will always influence the ultimate enjoyment of a keyboard, these guidelines ensure that every review is grounded in consistent, objective metrics.