Roux vs CFOP: An Honest Comparison
CFOP and Roux are the two dominant methods in competitive speedcubing. Both can reach any time barrier, both have active elite-level practitioners, and both require significant investment to master. Here's an honest, non-promotional comparison to help you make a real decision.
What Each Method Is
CFOP (Fridrich Method)
CFOP solves the cube in four linear steps: Cross (four bottom-layer edges), F2L (four corner-edge pairs in the first two layers), OLL (orient the last layer in one or two algorithms), and PLL (permute the last layer in one algorithm). Each step has a clearly defined goal with memorized algorithm sets for the last two steps.
Roux Method
Roux solves the cube using block building and slice moves rather than layer-by-layer logic. It was developed by French speedcuber Gilles Roux in the early 2000s and has gained significant competitive following since.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Factor | CFOP | Roux |
|---|---|---|
| Average move count | 50–65 STM (slice turn metric) | 40–50 STM |
| Algorithms required | ~78 (full OLL + PLL); 30 for sub-20 level | ~42 (CMLL); fewer for sub-20 level |
| Cube rotations | 2–6 per solve (during F2L) | 0–2 per solve (LSE uses M and U only) |
| Learning difficulty | Moderate, clear progression path | Higher, block building intuition required |
| Documentation quality | Excellent, thousands of tutorials | Good, fewer resources but quality is high |
| Community size | Large, the dominant method | Smaller but dedicated and growing |
| World-record potential | Yes, all speed records use CFOP or Roux | Yes, multiple world-class Roux solvers |
| Sub-20 achievability | Easier, clear milestones, more tutorials | Achievable but takes longer to develop intuition |
| One-handed solving | Difficult (cross requires many rotations OH) | Natural fit. M-slice heavy, fewer rotations |
| Average TPS required | More moves = can achieve same times at lower TPS | Fewer moves but block building requires speed |
Move Count: The Roux Advantage
Roux's theoretical advantage is clear in move count. A well-executed CFOP solve uses approximately 50–65 moves. A well-executed Roux solve uses approximately 40–50 moves. At equivalent TPS, this means Roux solvers need 15–25% fewer moves to solve the same scramble, a significant difference in theory.
In practice, this advantage is partially offset by TPS differences. CFOP's F2L heavily utilizes R and U moves with efficient finger tricks, allowing very high TPS on the first two layers. Roux's block building, especially the first block, often requires longer, more deliberate sequences, reducing effective TPS on that phase. The net result: at sub-15 level, the methods produce statistically comparable times despite CFOP's higher move count.
Learning Curve: The CFOP Advantage
CFOP's learning path is remarkably well-defined. The progression from beginner to sub-60, to sub-30, to sub-20, to sub-15 involves clear intermediate steps: learn 2-look OLL, then learn all PLL, then work on F2L efficiency, then learn full OLL. Each step has excellent tutorials. Plateaus are well-documented and the solutions are known.
Roux's learning curve is steeper and less defined. The first block, a 1x2x3 block built with complete flexibility, is a form of block building that most beginning cubers have no frame of reference for. Unlike CFOP's cross, which follows predictable patterns, the first block requires genuine spatial intuition for how to connect pieces across the bottom and left layers simultaneously. Most Roux learners spend 2–4 weeks building this intuition before their first-block times become competitive.
The second block is similarly intuitive. CMLL is algorithm-based and comparable to learning OLL/PLL for a CFOP solver. LSE (Last Six Edges) is intuitive once edge orientation is understood, typically the easiest part of Roux to master.
Algorithm Count: The Roux Advantage
Full CFOP requires 57 OLL algorithms plus 21 PLL algorithms: 78 total for the last layer alone. Full Roux requires 42 CMLL algorithms for the equivalent last-layer step (CMLL solves all four corners simultaneously in orientation and permutation). The LSE phase uses no algorithms: it's entirely intuitive or solved with a small number of recognition techniques.
In practice, the algorithm burden feels similar during the learning phase. Both methods can be practiced at an intermediate level with far fewer algorithms: 2-look OLL + full PLL for CFOP (30 algorithms), or partial CMLL sets for Roux. The full algorithm commitment comes later for both methods.
Competitive Viability
Both methods have produced world-class solvers. As of 2026, the sub-5-second club includes both CFOP and Roux practitioners. The world record and top rankings are dominated by CFOP, but this reflects the method's popularity (more CFOP solvers = more top-performing CFOP solvers) rather than any fundamental speed limit of Roux.
Several notable data points:
- Kian Mansour and Sean Patrick Villanueva: elite Roux solvers who have achieved sub-5-second singles
- The Roux method tends to produce more consistent averages due to lower move count variance
- CFOP dominates the field numerically because of its superior documentation and community support
- At sub-20 level, both methods produce nearly identical average times in the hands of equally dedicated solvers
One-Handed Solving
If one-handed (OH) solving interests you, Roux has a meaningful advantage. CFOP's cross requires cube rotations and F2L pairs often involve awkward OH moves. Roux's heavy use of M-slice moves (which are natural in OH with the thumb) and its low-rotation design translates more naturally to one-handed solving. Several top OH solvers use a Roux-adjacent method precisely because of this.
Who Should Choose CFOP
- Beginners who want the fastest path to their first sub-30, sub-20
- Solvers who prefer clear step-by-step method structures over open-ended intuitive solving
- Anyone who wants access to the largest community, most tutorials, and most reconstruction analyses
- Solvers who already know 2-look OLL and PLL and don't want to restart
- Anyone primarily focused on 3x3 two-handed (rather than OH or other events)
Who Should Consider Roux
- Intermediate solvers who are frustrated with CFOP's move count and want a more efficient method
- Solvers who enjoy block building and spatial intuition over algorithm memorization
- Anyone interested in one-handed solving as a primary event
- Solvers who have already hit a ceiling with CFOP and want to explore alternatives
- Advanced solvers (sub-15) considering a method switch who have time for the longer transition
If You're Already Doing CFOP
The most common question from established CFOP solvers: "Should I switch to Roux to get faster?" The answer depends on your current level and goals.
If you're averaging over 20 seconds, don't switch yet. The ceiling for CFOP at your level is substantially higher than where you are, and the time investment in a Roux switch will delay improvement. Work on F2L look-ahead, full OLL, and cross planning first, you haven't hit the CFOP ceiling.
If you're averaging 10–15 seconds and have been at that level for 6+ months despite consistent practice, exploring Roux makes more sense. At this level, the method's move-count efficiency could unlock improvement that CFOP-specific optimization has stopped providing. Be realistic about the 3–6 month regression period.
If you're averaging under 10 seconds and considering Roux, you're at an elite level where method choice is a genuinely personal optimization. At that level, you already know what you need to know to evaluate the switch yourself.
Whichever Method You Use, Recognition Matters
CFOP OLL/PLL recognition and Roux CMLL recognition both benefit from deliberate drilling. The trainer covers OLL and PLL recognition for CFOP solvers, with F2L cases applicable to both methods.
Open the Trainer →