I've heard so many contradictory statements about effective length due to animation I no longer believe any of them.
I suggest you test it out yourself. Go on duel, get the other guy to equip a axe and you equip a sword (or the other way around), then slowly close range and record which has more for what type of strike.
Or believe others, whatever. Point is, a 120ish length sword is roughly equivalent to a 140 to 150ish length polearm when it comes to swings (of course the 2h swords have a quite massive advantage in thrust range, but they're not one-shotting pikes like they used to be, so can't really complain there). You need longer polearms to have a range advantage, and none of the axe types fit the bill.
I overall prefer polearms of the non-shield breaking variety to get the range advantage. The only fairly long polearm with shieldbreaking and good damage is the GLB which is so incredibly slow I can't bring myself to use it (although, some do with a lot of effectiveness, not saying it's a bad weapon - just not for me).
As a polearmer, I find dueling another polearmer to be easier then a swordsman with one of the better swords, but for overall battle clusterfuck situation utility I'll take a long polearm any day.