Which language could I actually reach?
Start from what you have rather than from what you want. This lists the languages that reach your target inside your window — and the ones that do not, because that is the more useful half.
A note before you run it: the hours are the largest factor in this decision and they are not the only one. Dutch is in the cheapest band and almost impossible to practise. Italian and Portuguese have the same 552-hour derived baseline, yet access to people, media and a reason to use one can reverse the practical choice. This tool does not measure those factors.
How this is worked out
This runs the model backwards across every language at once. Your window and pace fix a budget of hours; each of the thirty-odd languages is then tested against your target level, with your background applied, and sorted into those that fit and those that do not.
Both lists are shown. The languages that do not fit are the more useful half — knowing that the current Mandarin baseline is about 3.2 times the Spanish baseline is one of the most valuable facts in this dataset, and filtering it out to keep the answer positive would remove it.
It will return an empty list
If nothing reaches your target in your window, that is the answer. The tool then distinguishes whether time or your method is the binding constraint, because lowering the target, changing the method and extending the window are three different fixes and only one of them applies.
Every tool here can decline to answer, and that is the most useful thing they do.
Common questions
- It says nothing fits. What do I change first?
- The target, then the method, then the window — in that order of effect. B1 is roughly half of B2 in hours, so lowering one level is the largest single lever. Method is next and is worth up to a factor of three. Extending the window is the weakest of the three and the one people reach for first.
- Why is the cheapest language not always the right choice?
- Because hours are the largest input to this decision and not the only one. Dutch sits in the cheapest band and can be difficult to practise because many potential partners speak strong English. Italian and Portuguese have the same 552-hour derived baseline, yet access to people, media and a reason to use one can reverse the practical choice. This tool does not measure those factors.
- Does it consider what I want to use the language for?
- No, and that is the input you should supply yourself before running it. This works out what is reachable; it cannot know that your grandmother speaks Cantonese or that your employer is opening an office in Warsaw. A language you have a reason for beats a cheaper one you do not, by a margin no hour figure reflects.
Sources
Everything this tool rests on. The current NFATC programme baseline is printed or transparently derived from the same page; the factors applied on top are ours and are marked as estimates.
- Foreign Language Training — US Department of State, National Foreign Affairs Training Center
The current NFATC training timelines: a typical week is 23 class hours plus 17 hours of self-study, aimed at an integrated ILR 3 in Speaking and Listening. Category I lists 24–30 weeks; using the page's typical class week, this site derives 552–690 class hours. Categories II–IV print 828, 1,012 and 2,200.
- 3 FAM 3910 — Language Incentive Pay Program — US Department of State, Foreign Affairs Manual
The separate current S-3/R-3 normal-course table: Spanish is 24 weeks, French 30, Category II 36, Category III 44 and Category IV 88. Its endpoint differs from the current NFATC integrated Speaking + Listening score, so the two tables must not be merged.
- Guided learning hours — Cambridge English
The cumulative shape between CEFR levels. Cambridge publishes guided-learning-hour bands for its English qualifications (A2 180–200, B1 350–400, B2 500–600, C1 700–800, C2 1,000–1,200). Our factors are normalised against C1 rather than fitted to every band; for example, 0.27 × the 750-hour C1 midpoint is 202.5, just above the A2 band.
- ILR scale — Wikipedia
That no official ILR-to-CEFR crosswalk exists. Published academic tables place ILR 3/3+ at C1; others put C1 nearer ILR 4. We take the lower reading, which makes our estimates the more conservative of the two.
- Zhongwen Shuiping Kaoshi (HSK) — Wikipedia
That Hanban's claimed one-to-one HSK-to-CEFR equivalence was rejected by CEFR bodies and is disputed by the German and French associations of Chinese-language teachers, who place old HSK 6 nearer B2–C1 than C2.
- The effect of previously acquired languages on third language acquisition — Heliyon 10(4), original research (2024)
Empirical evidence that previously acquired languages can influence third-language processing, and that structural similarity mattered more than broad typological proximity in the tested tasks. It does not publish an hours-saved coefficient for any pair, so it supports the existence and complexity of transfer but not this site's 30% estimate.
This tool is free and carries no ads or affiliate links. It is funded by commission on some course links elsewhere on the site — which pages, and how that is kept out of the recommendations.
If you got something out of this and are not going to buy a course, you can buy me a coffee instead. Entirely optional, and it changes nothing about what the calculator tells you.