2020-03-05
2684
#css
Anna Monus
15206
Mar 5, 2020 ⋅ 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:

You're doing vibe coding wrong: Here's how to do it right. A LogRocket article

You’re doing vibe coding wrong: Here’s how to do it right

Vibe coding isn’t just AI-assisted chaos. Here’s how to avoid insecure, unreadable code and turn your “vibes” into real developer productivity.

Chizaram Ken
Oct 28, 2025 ⋅ 11 min read

Exploring spec-driven development with the new GitHub Spec Kit

GitHub SpecKit brings structure to AI-assisted coding with a spec-driven workflow. Learn how to build a consistent, React-based project guided by clear specs and plans.

Emmanuel John
Oct 28, 2025 ⋅ 7 min read

The different ways to use CSS :has(), with examples

The CSS :has() pseudo-class is a powerful new feature that lets you style parents, siblings, and more – writing cleaner, more dynamic CSS with less JavaScript.

Daniel Schwarz
Oct 24, 2025 ⋅ 7 min read

Kombai AI: The AI agent built for frontend development

Kombai AI converts Figma designs into clean, responsive frontend code. It helps developers build production-ready UIs faster while keeping design accuracy and code quality intact.

Jude Miracle
Oct 23, 2025 ⋅ 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

Would you be interested in joining LogRocket's developer community?

Join LogRocket’s Content Advisory Board. You’ll help inform the type of content we create and get access to exclusive meetups, social accreditation, and swag.

Sign up now