EOT vs SVG: Complete Format Comparison
Comprehensive comparison of EOT and SVG font formats covering two failed web font experiments, IE-only proprietary versus XML bloat, and why both are completely obsolete
In Simple Terms
Both EOT and SVG fonts are completely obsolete with 0% browser support. EOT was IE-only (retired 2022), SVG fonts were deprecated (removed 2018).EOT failed due to proprietary lock-in. SVG failed due to massive file size (289% larger than WOFF) and terrible performance.Remove all EOT and SVG font references immediately. Use WOFF2 (97%+ support, 53 KB) and WOFF (99%+ support, 90 KB) for all modern web projects.
In this article
EOT (Embedded OpenType) and SVG fonts represent two fundamentally flawed approaches to web typography, both of which failed completely and are now obsolete with zero browser support. EOT, created exclusively by Microsoft in 1997 for Internet Explorer 4, was a proprietary format with DRM features (URL binding, root strings) that achieved similar compression ratios to modern formats (~40-50% reduction) but remained locked to IE throughout its existence—Chrome, Firefox, and Safari refused to implement it. SVG fonts, introduced in SVG 1.1 specification (2001), encoded glyphs as verbose XML text producing files 289% larger than WOFF (350 KB vs 90 KB) with slow XML parsing, no hinting support, and complete industry rejection—Chrome removed support in 2013, Safari iOS in 2018.
The critical distinction is that both formats failed, but for opposite reasons: EOT failed due to single-vendor lock-in and DRM complexity despite reasonable technical implementation, while SVG fonts failed due to catastrophic technical flaws (XML bloat, terrible performance) despite being part of an open specification. As of 2025, both have zero browser support. IE11 was retired in June 2022, dropping EOT support to 0%. Safari iOS 11.3 (2018) was the last browser to remove SVG font support. Both formats were completely superseded by WOFF (2012) and WOFF2 (2018), which provide superior compression, universal browser adoption, and optimal performance. Modern web development must avoid both EOT and SVG fonts entirely—they represent cautionary tales in format design.
This guide compares EOT and SVG fonts to understand why both failed and must be removed from all projects. You'll learn the technical specifications showing EOT's IE-only proprietary approach versus SVG's XML inefficiency, performance data demonstrating both formats' inadequacy compared to modern standards, browser compatibility showing complete obsolescence for both, historical context explaining their creation and failure, and definitive recommendations to remove all references immediately and use WOFF2/WOFF exclusively. Whether cleaning legacy code or understanding web font history, this guide provides essential knowledge about two formats that serve as warnings about proprietary lock-in and poor technical design.
Format Overview
EOT (Embedded OpenType)
History and Purpose:
- • Created by Microsoft exclusively (1997, IE4)
- • Proprietary format with DRM for foundries
- • Never adopted by Chrome, Firefox, Safari
- • IE11 retired June 2022
- • Completely obsolete (0% support)
Technical Characteristics:
- • MicroType Express compression (~40-50%)
- • DRM: URL binding, root strings
- • Proprietary, not open standard
- • File size: ~80 KB (similar to WOFF)
- • Extension: .eot
Current Status (2025):
- • Zero browser support (IE retired)
- • Failed: single-vendor, DRM backfired
- • DO NOT use in any projects
SVG Font Format
History and Purpose:
- • Introduced in SVG 1.1 specification (2001)
- • Experimental XML-based font embedding
- • Brief use by Safari iOS (2008-2018)
- • Never achieved mainstream adoption
- • Completely obsolete (0% support)
Technical Characteristics:
- • XML text format with verbose markup
- • 289% larger than WOFF (350 KB vs 90 KB)
- • Slow XML parsing + SVG rendering
- • No hinting support
- • Extension: .svg (within SVG docs)
Current Status (2025):
- • Zero browser support (removed)
- • Failed: catastrophic technical flaws
- • DO NOT use in any projects
Both Failed: Different Reasons
- EOT failure: Proprietary lock-in, DRM complexity, single vendor
- SVG failure: Technical incompetence, XML bloat, terrible performance
- Common result: Both 0% support, completely obsolete
- Replacement: WOFF/WOFF2 succeeded with open standards + technical excellence
Technical Differences
Technical Comparison
| Feature | EOT | SVG |
|---|---|---|
| Creator | Microsoft (proprietary) | W3C SVG (open spec) |
| Year | 1997 (IE4) | 2001 (SVG 1.1) |
| Data Format | Binary (compressed) | XML/Text (bloated) |
| Compression | MicroType Express (~40-50%) | None |
| File Size | ~80 KB | ~350 KB (338% larger) |
| DRM | Yes (URL binding) | None |
| Browser Support Peak | IE only (never others) | Safari iOS briefly |
| Current Support | 0% | 0% |
| Failure Reason | Proprietary lock-in | Technical incompetence |
EOT's Fatal Flaws
- Single vendor: Microsoft only, other browsers refused
- DRM backfire: URL binding broke dev/staging environments
- Complexity: Additional conversion step deterred developers
- Ineffective protection: DRM easily bypassed
- No standards body: Proprietary specification
- Industry rejection: Foundries eventually accepted WOFF without DRM
SVG Fonts' Fatal Flaws
- Massive bloat: 350 KB vs 90 KB WOFF (289% larger)
- XML overhead: Tags/attributes add 100-200% size
- Slow parsing: XML inherently slower than binary
- No hinting: Poor quality at small sizes
- Limited features: Can't support OpenType GSUB/GPOS
- Browser rejection: Chrome removed 2013, never worked well
Performance Analysis
File Size Comparison
Example: Open Sans Regular (Latin)
| Format | Size | Status |
|---|---|---|
| OTF/TTF | 168 KB | Baseline |
| EOT | 80 KB | Obsolete (0%) |
| SVG | 350 KB | Obsolete (0%) |
| WOFF | 90 KB | Active (99%+) |
| WOFF2 | 53 KB | Best (97%+) |
Analysis: SVG is worst (350 KB), EOT similar to WOFF (80 KB), but both are obsolete. WOFF2 is optimal (53 KB).
Why Both Failed Performance-Wise
EOT Issues:
- • DRM processing added overhead
- • Proprietary compression not as good as Brotli
- • Limited optimization opportunities
SVG Issues:
- • 289% larger than WOFF, catastrophic for performance
- • XML parsing 10× slower than binary
- • SVG rendering slower than font rasterizer
- • No optimization possible with XML text format
Browser Compatibility
Browser Support Timeline
| Browser | EOT | SVG |
|---|---|---|
| Chrome | ✗ | ✗ (removed 2013) |
| Firefox | ✗ | ✗ (never) |
| Safari | ✗ | ✗ (removed 2018) |
| IE/Edge Legacy | ✗ (IE retired 2022) | ✗ |
Current (2025): EOT: 0% support. SVG: 0% support. Both completely obsolete.
Historical Context
Timeline of Failure
- 1997: Microsoft creates EOT for IE4
- 1997-2009: EOT remains IE-exclusive despite being first
- 2001: SVG 1.1 introduces SVG fonts
- 2009: WOFF created as proper open standard
- 2012: WOFF becomes W3C standard, universal adoption
- 2013: Chrome removes SVG fonts (poor performance)
- 2016: W3C officially deprecates SVG fonts
- 2018: WOFF2 standard, Safari removes SVG
- 2022: IE11 retired, EOT drops to 0%
- 2025: Both formats extinct, WOFF2 universal
Lessons Learned
- • Proprietary formats fail: Single-vendor lock-in prevents adoption (EOT)
- • DRM backfires: Protection hurts UX, drives away users (EOT)
- • Technical quality matters: Bad implementation guarantees failure (SVG)
- • Open standards win: Collaboration and transparency build trust (WOFF)
- • First-mover not enough: EOT first (1997), WOFF won (2009)
Modern Recommendations
Always Use WOFF2/WOFF:
- • Primary: WOFF2 (97%+ browsers, 53 KB, optimal)
- • Fallback: WOFF (99%+ browsers, 90 KB)
- • Universal: Works everywhere
- • Open standard: W3C specification
- • No DRM: Simple, effective
Never Use EOT or SVG:
- • Zero support: Both 0% browser support
- • Completely obsolete: Removed from all browsers
- • No advantages: Inferior in every way to WOFF2/WOFF
- • Action: Remove all references immediately
Modern Implementation (2025)
/* Optimal web font stack */
@font-face {
font-family: 'MyFont';
src: url('/fonts/font.woff2') format('woff2'),
url('/fonts/font.woff') format('woff');
font-display: swap;
}
/* WOFF2: 97%+, 53 KB (best) */
/* WOFF: 99%+, 90 KB (fallback) */
/* No EOT: 0% (obsolete) */
/* No SVG: 0% (obsolete) */
/* Result: 99%+ coverage, optimal */Removal Checklist
- ☐ Search CSS for .eot and .svg font references
- ☐ Remove url('font.eot') lines completely
- ☐ Remove url('font.svg#FontName') lines
- ☐ Delete .eot and .svg font files from server
- ☐ Ensure WOFF2 and WOFF files exist
- ☐ Test in modern browsers
- ☐ Verify fonts load correctly
- ☐ Confirm performance improvement
Summary: EOT vs SVG
EOT and SVG fonts both failed completely with 0% browser support as of 2025. EOT (Microsoft 1997) failed due to proprietary lock-in and DRM complexity despite reasonable compression (80 KB). SVG fonts (W3C 2001) failed due to catastrophic technical flaws—XML bloat producing 350 KB files (289% larger than WOFF), slow parsing, and no hinting. Both were superseded by WOFF/WOFF2 which provide superior compression, universal support, and optimal performance. Remove all EOT and SVG font references immediately. Use WOFF2 (primary, 53 KB, 97%+) and WOFF (fallback, 90 KB, 99%+) exclusively.
Written & Verified by
Sarah Mitchell
Product Designer, Font Specialist
EOT vs SVG FAQs
Common questions answered about this font format comparison