Minor quibble that this is not true (or at least strongly disputed).
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/fact-of-fiction-...
This was not even attempted; Esperanto is a Romance language. Unless you think the only salient parties are Spain, France, Portugal, Italy, and Latin America, this "value" does not exist and was not a goal.
And it was pretty much a goal of its creator to be both familiar and foreign for different european language families, as he had experienced division in Poland between speakers of those different families and wanted to have something more universal to gather them all together.
Esperanto has been described as "a language lexically predominantly Romanic, morphologically intensively agglutinative, and to a certain degree isolating in character".[74] Typologically, Esperanto has prepositions and a pragmatic word order that by default is subject–verb–object. Adjectives can be freely placed before or after the nouns they modify, though placing them before the noun is more common. New words are formed through extensive prefixing and suffixing."
Esperanto isn't intended to be superior. It's value is on it being equally foreign yet approachable for all the salient parties and therefore a conceivable acceptable neutral turf for everyone to share.
Ironically, the case for Dvorak keyboards is kind of the opposite: QWERTY was intentionally designed to avoid jams, which if anything biased towards making it more difficult.
It's not so much technical superiority as having a design objective that is more appropriate for the problem space.
One can similarly argue about whether "QUEL" is really technically superior to "SQL", but the design objective is (at least as perceived by the author) better aligned with the solution space.