and yet they were more used in actual combat then swords
May I see your sources on this? Because this is quite at odds with my own historical studies. What is "actual combat"? What time period are you referring to? Because I'm only aware of a few cases when axes and axe-like weapons saw significant deployment on the battlefields of Europe. The Dacians used the falx against Trajan's legions, but I'd argue that the falx is more of a two-handed sword. King Harold's bodyguards used the Dane axe to good effect in the Battle of Hastings, but again, this example is conspicuous because it is rare.
Swords are sidearms. To compare them to main battle weapons is like comparing pistols to rifles. There is no "better", simply two different niches. If you're saying that there tended to be more axes in a given army than there were swords . . . No. Battle-axes were specialist weapons and anyone who could afford a sword would wear one in addition to carrying their primary weapon.
I have no particular point. I just can't stand sweeping generalizations.