2020-03-05
2684
#css
Anna Monus
15206
Mar 5, 2020 â‹… 9 min read

Variable fonts: Is the performance trade-off worth it?

Anna Monus Anna is a technical writer who covers frontend frameworks, web standards, accessibility, WordPress development, UX design, and more. Head to her personal blog Annalytic for more content.

Recent posts:

Implementing React Islands In Static Web Applications

Implementing React Islands in static web applications

React Islands integrates React into legacy codebases, enabling modernization without requiring a complete rewrite.

Nelson Michael
Jan 28, 2025 â‹… 4 min read

Onlook: A React visual editor

Onlook bridges design and development, integrating design tools into IDEs for seamless collaboration and faster workflows.

Jude Miracle
Jan 27, 2025 â‹… 8 min read
A Comprehensive Guide To JavaScript Generators

A comprehensive guide to JavaScript generators

JavaScript generators offer a powerful and often overlooked way to handle asynchronous operations, manage state, and process data streams.

Fimber Elemuwa
Jan 24, 2025 â‹… 8 min read
​​Solving Micro-Frontend Challenges With Module Federation

​​Solving micro-frontend challenges with Module Federation

webpack’s Module Federation allows you to easily share code and dependencies between applications, helpful in micro-frontend architecture.

Peter Aideloje
Jan 23, 2025 â‹… 7 min read
View all posts

3 Replies to "Variable fonts: Is the performance trade-off worth it?"

  1. I’m surprised that you were only able to find one font family with both static and variable versions, when there are quite a few out there, including, but not limited to Gimlet by David Jonathan Ross, Oswald hosted by Google fonts, and Zeitung by Underware.

    Not all variable fonts are created equally. Some are created with a much better emphasis on file size. I was shocked when you mentioned the huge size for Roboto variable, since this is not the normal for variable fonts. I have seen many under 100kb. Here’s an article here that shows how the Gimlet variable font is smaller in size than the static alternative (http://stuff.djr.com/gimlet-vf-size-test/).

    So by using only a single example of a font family that is out of the norm for file size, it can give a very misleading impression on the performance of variable fonts.

  2. > The first contentful paint took just 1.2s, down from 1.6s, a 25 percent improvement. Consequently, Lighthouse’s performance score is also a bit higher: 100 instead of 99. This is most likely because Google Fonts runs a few checks to decide which font format/file to load, while our self-hosted CSS contains static file paths.

    There is definitely a performance hit to using Google Fonts. See here: https://www.tunetheweb.com/blog/should-you-self-host-google-fonts/

    Good post though. Seems to me variable font makers need to be careful how many axis’s they add. If Roboto used italic (one variant which is on or off) rather than slant (12 variants with full range) would it be smaller? Also dropping wdth would also presumably make it up to a third smaller?

  3. I presume the Lighthouse First Contentful Paint (FCP) is larger than the GTMetrix Fully Loaded Time (FLT) because Lighthouse was set to simulate a slow mobile connection. But, why does the “Bonus Test Case” do so badly on the Lighthouse FCP (relative to Test cases 2 and 3) but not on the GTMetrix FLT?

Leave a Reply