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:

how to protect your ai agent from prompt injection attacks

How to protect your AI agent from prompt injection attacks

Explore six principled design patterns (with real-world examples) to help you protect your LLM agents from prompt injection attacks.

Rosario De Chiara
Aug 27, 2025 â‹… 5 min read
Don’t Let AI Erase The Next Generation Of Dev Leaders

Don’t let AI erase the next generation of dev leaders

As AI tools take over more routine coding work, some companies are cutting early-career dev roles — a short-sighted move that could quietly erode the next generation of tech leaders if we aren’t careful.

Jack Herrington
Aug 26, 2025 â‹… 6 min read

Qwen3-Coder: Is this Agentic CLI smarter than senior devs?

Discover Qwen3-Coder, Alibaba’s 480B parameter agentic coding CLI, with real-world tests, use cases, and performance insights.

Chizaram Ken
Aug 26, 2025 â‹… 4 min read

daisyUI 5 is here: What’s new and what to expect

Explore daisyUI 5’s new features, performance upgrades, and theming engine built for Tailwind CSS 4 developers.

Ikeh Akinyemi
Aug 25, 2025 â‹… 8 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