TTF vs SVG: Complete Format Comparison
Comprehensive comparison of TrueType Font (TTF) and SVG Font formats covering technical differences, compatibility, performance, and why SVG fonts are obsolete
In Simple Terms
SVG fonts are deprecated and obsolete with 0% browser support (removed 2013-2018). Never use SVG fonts for text rendering in any project.TTF is the standard desktop font format. Use TTF for desktop apps and as source files. Not optimized for web—convert before using online.For web: Convert TTF to WOFF2 (68% smaller, 97%+ support). Remove all SVG font references immediately. Use WOFF2 + WOFF fallback for modern sites.
In this article
TrueType Font (TTF) and SVG Font formats represent fundamentally different approaches to font rendering, each with distinct technical foundations and use cases. TTF, developed by Apple in 1989, uses mathematical curve definitions (quadratic Bézier curves) with hinting instructions to render text at any size on screens and in print. SVG fonts, introduced in the SVG 1.1 specification (2001), define glyphs as vector paths within Scalable Vector Graphics documents, enabling fonts to be embedded directly in SVG markup. While TTF became the dominant desktop font format for three decades, SVG fonts remained a niche technology primarily used for legacy iOS Safari before being deprecated and removed from modern browsers.
The most critical fact about SVG fonts is their obsolescence. Chrome removed support in 2013, Firefox never implemented full support, and Safari iOS (the last browser supporting SVG fonts) deprecated them in favor of WOFF/WOFF2 in 2018. As of 2025, SVG fonts have zero browser support and should never be used in new projects. TTF, while not optimal for web use, remains relevant as a desktop format and conversion source for web-optimized formats like WOFF2. The SVG font specification itself was deprecated by the W3C in favor of WOFF, which provides superior compression, performance, and feature support.
This comprehensive guide compares TTF and SVG fonts across all technical dimensions to provide complete understanding of these formats. You'll learn the historical context and intended purpose of each format, detailed technical differences in glyph definition and rendering, browser compatibility timelines showing SVG font deprecation, performance comparisons demonstrating SVG font inefficiency, appropriate use cases for TTF in modern development, why WOFF2 replaced both formats for web use, and migration strategies for removing legacy SVG font references. Whether maintaining legacy code or planning new projects, this guide clarifies why SVG fonts are obsolete and how to use modern alternatives effectively.
Format Overview
TrueType Font (TTF)
History and Purpose:
- • Developed by Apple in 1989 as alternative to Adobe's PostScript fonts
- • Licensed to Microsoft in 1991, becoming Windows standard
- • Designed for desktop operating systems and applications
- • Optimized for screen rendering with hinting instructions
- • Still used for desktop fonts, design work, and conversion source
Technical Foundation:
- • Binary format with table-based structure
- • Quadratic Bézier curves for glyph outlines
- • TrueType hinting for pixel-perfect rendering at small sizes
- • Comprehensive glyph data including metrics, kerning
- • Supports Unicode, OpenType features
File Characteristics:
- • Extension: .ttf
- • Typical size: 150-300 KB (Latin fonts)
- • Format: Uncompressed binary
- • Status: Active for desktop, legacy for web
SVG Font Format
History and Purpose:
- • Introduced in SVG 1.1 specification (2001)
- • Designed to embed fonts within SVG documents
- • Primarily used for iOS Safari before WOFF support
- • Never gained widespread adoption outside Apple ecosystem
- • Deprecated by W3C, removed from browsers
Technical Foundation:
- • XML-based format using SVG path syntax
- • Glyphs defined as SVG path elements
- • Embedded within SVG <defs> and <font> tags
- • No hinting support (relies on SVG rendering)
- • Limited font feature support compared to TrueType/OpenType
File Characteristics:
- • Extension: .svg or embedded in .svg files
- • Typical size: 200-400 KB (much larger than TTF)
- • Format: XML/text (inefficient)
- • Status: Obsolete - zero browser support
Critical Status: SVG Fonts Are Obsolete
SVG fonts should NEVER be used in new projects:
- • Chrome removed support in 2013 (version 38)
- • Firefox never fully implemented SVG fonts
- • Safari iOS deprecated in 2018 (iOS 11.3)
- • W3C deprecated SVG fonts in favor of WOFF
- • Zero browser support as of 2025
If you encounter SVG font references in legacy code, remove them immediately. They provide no benefit and increase file sizes unnecessarily.
Technical Differences
Comprehensive Technical Comparison
| Feature | TTF | SVG |
|---|---|---|
| Data Format | Binary (table-based) | XML/Text (verbose) |
| Glyph Definition | Quadratic Bézier curves | SVG path elements |
| File Size | 150-300 KB | 200-400 KB (larger) |
| Hinting | Full TrueType hinting | None (no hinting) |
| Compression | None (uncompressed) | Optional gzip (inefficient) |
| OpenType Features | Full support | Limited/no support |
| Rendering | OS-level, optimized | SVG engine, slower |
| Browser Support | All browsers | None (removed) |
| Current Status | Active (desktop) | Obsolete |
Glyph Definition Comparison
TTF Glyph Definition:
- • Stored as binary coordinate points
- • Quadratic Bézier curves (on-curve and off-curve points)
- • Hinting instructions for pixel-grid alignment
- • Compact representation: ~50-200 bytes per glyph
- • Fast parsing and rendering by OS
SVG Glyph Definition:
- • Stored as XML text strings
- • SVG path commands (M, L, C, Q, Z)
- • No hinting (relies on anti-aliasing)
- • Verbose representation: ~200-500 bytes per glyph
- • Slow XML parsing and SVG rendering
Example: Letter "A" in TTF: ~100 bytes binary. Same glyph in SVG: ~300 bytes XML text.
Why SVG Fonts Failed
SVG fonts were conceptually interesting but practically flawed:
- Larger file sizes: XML text is 2-3x larger than binary TTF
- Slower rendering: XML parsing + SVG rendering is slower than native font rendering
- No hinting: Poor rendering at small sizes without pixel-grid alignment
- Limited features: Couldn't support advanced OpenType features (ligatures, kerning)
- Browser resistance: Chrome/Firefox refused to implement due to inefficiency
- Better alternatives: WOFF emerged with superior compression and compatibility
SVG Font Structure Example
Historical reference showing verbose XML structure:
<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">
<defs>
<font id="MyFont" horiz-adv-x="1000">
<font-face font-family="MyFont" units-per-em="1000"/>
<missing-glyph horiz-adv-x="500"/>
<glyph unicode="A" horiz-adv-x="722"
d="M361 0L361 250L111 250L111 0... (long path data)"/>
<!-- Repeated for every glyph -->
</font>
</defs>
</svg>
<!-- 200-400 KB for full font vs 150-300 KB for TTF -->Browser Compatibility
Browser Support Timeline
| Browser | TTF | SVG | SVG Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chrome | ✓ All | ✗ | Removed in v38 (2013) |
| Safari (Desktop) | ✓ All | ✗ | Deprecated 2018 |
| Safari (iOS) | ✓ All | ✗ | Removed iOS 11.3 (2018) |
| Firefox | ✓ All | ✗ | Never implemented |
| Edge | ✓ All | ✗ | Never supported |
Current Status (2025): SVG fonts have 0% browser support. TTF works in all browsers but not recommended for web (use WOFF2).
SVG Font Deprecation Timeline
- 2001: SVG 1.1 spec introduces SVG fonts
- 2008-2012: Only Safari iOS supports SVG fonts (no WOFF support yet)
- 2012: Safari iOS adds WOFF support, deprecates SVG fonts
- 2013: Chrome removes SVG font support (never widely used)
- 2016: W3C officially deprecates SVG fonts in favor of WOFF
- 2018: Safari iOS 11.3 completely removes SVG font support
- 2025: Zero browser support, format completely obsolete
Legacy @font-face with SVG
Historical example showing outdated SVG font usage:
/* DON'T DO THIS - SVG fonts are obsolete */
@font-face {
font-family: 'MyFont';
src: url('font.eot');
src: url('font.woff2') format('woff2'),
url('font.woff') format('woff'),
url('font.ttf') format('truetype'),
url('font.svg#MyFont') format('svg'); /* REMOVE THIS */
}
/* Modern approach - no SVG */
@font-face {
font-family: 'MyFont';
src: url('font.woff2') format('woff2'),
url('font.woff') format('woff');
font-display: swap;
}Performance Comparison
File Size Comparison
Example: Open Sans Regular with full Latin character set
| Format | File Size | vs TTF | Efficiency |
|---|---|---|---|
| TTF | 168 KB | Baseline | Uncompressed |
| SVG | 350 KB | 108% larger | XML (verbose) |
| SVG (gzipped) | 210 KB | 25% larger | Gzip compression |
| WOFF | 90 KB | 46% smaller | Gzip optimized |
| WOFF2 | 53 KB | 68% smaller | Brotli (best) |
Key finding: SVG is the worst format by file size. Even gzipped, it's still 25% larger than uncompressed TTF.
Why SVG Fonts Perform Poorly
- XML overhead: Text format with tags, attributes adds 50-100% size overhead
- Path verbosity: SVG path commands are text strings vs compact binary
- Parsing cost: XML parsing is slower than binary format parsing
- Rendering overhead: SVG rendering engine is slower than native font rendering
- No optimization: Can't leverage font-specific compression like WOFF2's Brotli
- Memory usage: DOM nodes for glyphs consume more memory than font tables
WOFF2 Advantages Over Both TTF and SVG
- • vs TTF: 68% smaller (53 KB vs 168 KB) through Brotli compression
- • vs SVG: 85% smaller (53 KB vs 350 KB), much faster rendering
- • Universal support: 97%+ browsers vs 0% for SVG fonts
- • Full features: OpenType, hinting, kerning all preserved
- • Optimized rendering: Native font rendering, not SVG engine
- • Standard format: W3C recommended, actively maintained
Use Cases and Recommendations
When to Use TTF (2025)
Appropriate Uses:
- • Desktop fonts: Installing on Windows, macOS, Linux for applications
- • Design software: Using in Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Figma
- • Font development: Source format for font editors (FontForge, Glyphs)
- • Conversion source: Converting TTF → WOFF2 for web deployment
- • Legacy systems: Old software requiring TrueType fonts
Avoid:
- • Direct web use without conversion (too large, not optimized)
- • Web embedding via @font-face (use WOFF2 instead)
When to Use SVG Fonts (2025)
NEVER USE SVG FONTS:
- • Zero browser support (completely obsolete)
- • Larger file sizes than all alternatives
- • Slower performance than any alternative
- • No features or advantages over modern formats
- • W3C deprecated in favor of WOFF/WOFF2
If you find SVG fonts in legacy code: Remove immediately and replace with WOFF2.
Modern Web Font Stack (2025)
/* Correct modern implementation */
@font-face {
font-family: 'MyFont';
src: url('/fonts/font.woff2') format('woff2'),
url('/fonts/font.woff') format('woff');
font-weight: 400;
font-style: normal;
font-display: swap;
}
/* No TTF needed (not optimized for web) */
/* No SVG needed (obsolete, removed from browsers) */
/* No EOT needed (IE11 retired) */Two formats (WOFF2 + WOFF) provide 99%+ browser coverage with optimal performance.
Migration from Legacy Stacks
If your code includes SVG fonts:
- Remove SVG font references from @font-face declarations
- Delete .svg font files from server
- Ensure WOFF2 and WOFF versions exist
- Test in modern browsers (Chrome, Safari, Firefox)
- Remove any SVG-specific polyfills or fallback code
Modern Alternatives
Why WOFF2 Replaced Both Formats
WOFF2 addressed the problems of both TTF (too large) and SVG (inefficient):
- Superior compression: Brotli achieves 30-50% better compression than gzip
- Optimal size: 68% smaller than TTF, 85% smaller than SVG
- Fast rendering: Native font rendering, not SVG engine
- Full features: All OpenType features, hinting preserved
- Universal support: 97%+ browsers (vs 0% for SVG)
- Industry standard: W3C recommended, foundry support
Conversion Workflow
From TTF to WOFF2:
# Using FontTools pip install fonttools brotli fonttools ttLib.woff2 compress font.ttf # Creates font.woff2 # Or use online converter # Visit font-converters.com, upload TTF, download WOFF2
From SVG to WOFF2:
Don't convert SVG fonts. Obtain original TTF/OTF source files and convert those to WOFF2. SVG fonts lack proper font data for reliable conversion.
Complete Migration Checklist
- ☐ Audit codebase for SVG font references
- ☐ Remove .svg font files from server
- ☐ Remove SVG format from @font-face declarations
- ☐ Convert TTF sources to WOFF2 and WOFF
- ☐ Update @font-face to use only WOFF2 + WOFF
- ☐ Add font-display: swap for better UX
- ☐ Test in Chrome, Safari, Firefox
- ☐ Verify file sizes reduced (should be 60-85% smaller)
- ☐ Remove any SVG font polyfills or fallback scripts
- ☐ Update documentation to reflect modern stack
Summary: TTF vs SVG
TTF and SVG fonts represent vastly different approaches: TTF as a compact binary format with 30+ years of desktop success, SVG as a verbose XML experiment that failed for web use. SVG fonts are obsolete with zero browser support since 2018. They were always larger (350 KB vs 168 KB TTF) and slower, with no advantages over proper font formats. Browsers removed support in favor of WOFF/WOFF2.
TTF remains relevant for desktop use and as a conversion source. Modern web development requires WOFF2 (53 KB, 97%+ support) as the primary format with WOFF fallback. Never use SVG fonts—remove them from legacy code immediately. WOFF2 is 68% smaller than TTF and 85% smaller than SVG while providing superior features, performance, and compatibility. The SVG font experiment is over; WOFF2 is the present and future of web fonts.
Written & Verified by
Sarah Mitchell
Product Designer, Font Specialist
TTF vs SVG FAQs
Common questions answered about this font format comparison