[4] There are several technical differences among electric hand dryers, such as airspeed, water containment, energy efficiency, use of heat, type of filter, motor lifespan, and power usage.

[11] A paper was presented at the 17th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Munich, Germany in 2007 by the University of Bradford and Dyson showing that for a set drying time of 10 seconds, the Airblade led to significantly less bacterial transfer than with the other driers (p < 0.05).

In addition, the study showed that rubbing hands whilst using the driers counteracted the reduction in overall bacterial numbers at all anatomical sites.

The report found that "the manufacturer’s claim that the tested JAD [Airblade] is 'the most hygienic hand dryer' is confirmed ... assuming that the term 'hand dryer' refers to electric devices only because its performance in terms of the numbers of all types of bacteria remaining on the hands of users compared to paper towels was significantly worse.

[16] Dyson's advertisements stated the Xlerator produces twice as much carbon dioxide, is worse for the environment, and costs more to operate than the Airblade.

Excel Dryer charged that Dyson was falsifying its comparisons by submitting a 20-second dry time for the Xlerator to the Materials Systems Laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, rather than Excel Dryer's tested 12-second dry time, thus inflating energy consumption figures in the Airblade's favor.

In 2014, a paper was published in the Journal of Hospital Infection (2014;88:199-206), showing that high-speed hand dryers such as the Dyson Airblade can spread large numbers of a harmless test bacteria through the air in the vicinity.