WOFF vs SVG: Complete Format Comparison
Comprehensive comparison of WOFF and SVG font formats covering efficient binary compression versus verbose XML, universal web standard versus failed experiment, and why SVG fonts are obsolete
In Simple Terms
SVG fonts are obsolete with 0% browser support (removed 2013-2018). WOFF is the web standard with 99%+ support. Never use SVG fonts.WOFF is 90 KB compressed, SVG is 350 KB bloated (289% larger). SVG fonts failed due to XML inefficiency and terrible performance.Use WOFF2 (not WOFF) for modern sites. WOFF2 is 41% smaller than WOFF. Remove all SVG font references from projects immediately.
In this article
WOFF (Web Open Font Format) and SVG fonts represent fundamentally different technological approaches to web typography, with WOFF being the efficient, professional standard and SVG fonts being an experimental XML-based format that failed completely. WOFF, created collaboratively by Mozilla, Opera, and Microsoft in 2009 and standardized by W3C in 2012, uses zlib compression on binary OpenType/TrueType font data to achieve 40-50% size reduction (168 KB → 90 KB), with fast parsing and universal browser support since 2013. SVG fonts, introduced in the SVG 1.1 specification (2001), define glyphs as XML-encoded vector paths within SVG documents, resulting in verbose text files 30-100% larger than equivalent binary fonts (168 KB → 350 KB uncompressed) with slower XML parsing and zero browser support as of 2025.
The critical distinction is that WOFF succeeded and became the universal web font standard while SVG fonts were completely rejected by the industry. WOFF achieved 99%+ browser adoption and handles billions of daily page loads. SVG fonts never gained traction—Chrome removed support in 2013, Firefox never fully implemented them, and Safari iOS (the last holdout) deprecated them in 2018. The W3C officially deprecated SVG fonts in favor of WOFF because SVG fonts suffer from fundamental inefficiencies: XML text overhead makes files 2-3× larger than binary formats, XML parsing is slower than native font rendering, no hinting support means poor small-size rendering, and limited OpenType feature support. Even when gzip-compressed, SVG fonts (210 KB) remain 133% larger than WOFF (90 KB) and 296% larger than WOFF2 (53 KB).
This comprehensive guide compares WOFF and SVG fonts to clarify why WOFF became the standard while SVG fonts became obsolete. You'll learn the technical specifications showing WOFF's binary efficiency versus SVG's XML bloat, performance comparisons demonstrating WOFF's superior file sizes and load times, browser compatibility showing WOFF's universality versus SVG fonts' complete rejection, historical context of why SVG fonts were created and why they failed, and modern recommendations to use WOFF/WOFF2 exclusively. Whether removing SVG fonts from legacy code or understanding web font history, this guide provides essential knowledge about these formats' contrasting fates.
Format Overview
WOFF (Web Open Font Format)
History and Purpose:
- • Created by Mozilla, Opera, Microsoft (2009)
- • W3C Recommendation (2012)
- • Designed for efficient web font delivery
- • Industry standard since 2013
- • Actively used on billions of websites
Technical Characteristics:
- • Binary format with zlib compression
- • Wraps OpenType/TrueType data
- • 40-50% size reduction
- • Fast native font rendering
- • Extension: .woff
Current Status (2025):
- • Universal browser support (99%+)
- • Active, widely deployed
- • File size: ~90 KB (typical Latin font)
- • Use case: Web font standard
SVG Font Format
History and Purpose:
- • Introduced in SVG 1.1 specification (2001)
- • Experimental XML-based font embedding
- • Designed for SVG document portability
- • Never achieved widespread adoption
- • Completely obsolete (2025)
Technical Characteristics:
- • XML text format with verbose markup
- • Glyphs as SVG path elements
- • 30-100% larger than binary fonts
- • Slow XML parsing + SVG rendering
- • Extension: .svg (within SVG docs)
Current Status (2025):
- • Zero browser support
- • Chrome removed 2013, Safari iOS 2018
- • W3C deprecated in favor of WOFF
- • DO NOT use in any projects
Why SVG Fonts Failed Completely
SVG fonts were rejected due to fundamental technical flaws:
- XML bloat: Text markup is 2-3× larger than binary encoding
- Poor performance: XML parsing + SVG rendering slower than native fonts
- No hinting: Terrible rendering quality at small sizes
- Limited features: Couldn't support advanced OpenType capabilities
- Browser rejection: Chrome, Firefox refused to implement fully
- Better alternative: WOFF provided superior solution
Technical Differences
Comprehensive Technical Comparison
| Feature | WOFF | SVG |
|---|---|---|
| Data Format | Binary (optimized) | XML/Text (verbose) |
| Compression | zlib (40-50% reduction) | None (or gzip external) |
| File Size | 90 KB (compressed) | 350 KB (289% larger) |
| Parsing Speed | Fast (binary) | Slow (XML + SVG) |
| Rendering | Native font engine | SVG renderer (slower) |
| Hinting | Full support | None |
| OpenType Features | Full support | Limited/none |
| Browser Support | 99%+ (universal) | 0% (removed) |
| Status | Active standard | Obsolete |
Binary vs XML Encoding
WOFF Binary Efficiency:
- • Font data as compact binary coordinates
- • ~50-200 bytes per glyph
- • Fast parsing by browser
- • zlib compression reduces further (40-50%)
- • Example: Letter "A" = ~100 bytes compressed
SVG XML Verbosity:
- • Font data as XML text with tags
- • ~200-500 bytes per glyph
- • Slow XML parsing + DOM creation
- • Even gzipped, still much larger
- • Example: Letter "A" = ~300 bytes XML
Result: WOFF is 2-3× more efficient in size and speed.
SVG Font XML Structure Example
Example showing verbose XML overhead (DO NOT USE):
<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 250... (long path string)"/>
<!-- Repeated for every character -->
<!-- Results in 350 KB file vs 90 KB WOFF -->
</font>
</defs>
</svg>
<!-- XML tags, attributes, namespaces add 50-100% bloat -->Technical Problems with SVG Fonts
- Massive overhead: XML tags/attributes add 50-100% size bloat
- Path verbosity: Text commands vs compact binary coordinates
- No hinting: Cannot encode pixel-grid alignment
- Poor rendering: SVG engine slower than native font rendering
- Feature limitations: Can't represent OpenType GSUB/GPOS tables
- Memory inefficient: DOM nodes use more memory than font tables
Performance Comparison
File Size Comparison
Example: Open Sans Regular (Latin character set)
| Format | File Size | vs Original | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTF/TTF | 168 KB | Baseline | Active |
| WOFF | 90 KB | 46% smaller | Active |
| SVG (uncompressed) | 350 KB | 108% larger | Obsolete |
| SVG (gzipped) | 210 KB | 25% larger | Still obsolete |
| WOFF2 | 53 KB | 68% smaller | Best |
Key finding: SVG is worst format. Even gzipped, it's 133% larger than WOFF and 296% larger than WOFF2.
Why SVG Fonts Perform Terribly
- XML overhead: Tags, attributes, namespaces multiply file size
- Text encoding: Path commands as strings vs binary data
- Parsing cost: XML parsing inherently slower than binary
- Rendering overhead: SVG rendering engine slower than font engine
- No optimization: Can't use font-specific compression
- Memory consumption: DOM nodes consume more memory
WOFF Advantages Over SVG
- • File size: 74% smaller (90 KB vs 350 KB uncompressed)
- • Load time: 3× faster download on typical connection
- • Parsing: Binary parsing much faster than XML
- • Rendering: Native font engine optimized for text
- • Quality: Hinting support for crisp small-size rendering
- • Features: Full OpenType capabilities
- • Browser support: 99%+ vs 0%
Browser Compatibility
Browser Support Timeline
| Browser | WOFF | SVG | SVG Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chrome | ✓ | ✗ | Removed v38 (2013) |
| Firefox | ✓ | ✗ | Never implemented |
| Safari (Desktop) | ✓ | ✗ | Deprecated 2018 |
| Safari (iOS) | ✓ | ✗ | Removed iOS 11.3 (2018) |
| Edge | ✓ | ✗ | Never supported |
Current Status (2025): WOFF: 99%+ support. SVG fonts: 0% support.
SVG Font Deprecation History
- 2001: SVG 1.1 introduces SVG fonts as experimental
- 2008-2012: Safari iOS briefly supports (before WOFF)
- 2012: WOFF emerges as superior alternative
- 2013: Chrome removes SVG font support
- 2016: W3C officially deprecates SVG fonts
- 2018: Safari iOS 11.3 removes support
- 2025: Zero browser support, completely obsolete
Legacy @font-face Code
Historical example with SVG fonts (DO NOT USE):
/* OUTDATED - DO NOT USE */
@font-face {
font-family: 'MyFont';
src: url('font.woff2') format('woff2'),
url('font.woff') format('woff'),
url('font.ttf') format('truetype'),
url('font.svg#MyFont') format('svg'); /* REMOVE */
}
/* MODERN (2025) - USE THIS */
@font-face {
font-family: 'MyFont';
src: url('font.woff2') format('woff2'),
url('font.woff') format('woff');
font-display: swap;
}
/* SVG font line removed - obsolete */Historical Context
Why SVG Fonts Were Created
SVG fonts emerged from a specific use case:
- Problem: Early 2000s lacked web font standards
- SVG context: SVG documents wanted self-contained fonts
- Conceptual appeal: Fonts are vectors, SVG is vectors
- Implementation: Embed glyphs as SVG paths
- Reality: Conceptually interesting but technically flawed
Why Safari iOS Briefly Used SVG Fonts
Safari iOS (2008-2018) was only browser with significant SVG font support:
- • Early iOS lacked WOFF support
- • Designers wanted custom fonts on mobile
- • SVG fonts were only option temporarily
- • Apple deprecated once WOFF became available
- • Lesson: SVG fonts were always a stopgap
Why WOFF Won
- • Efficient: Binary format 74% smaller than SVG
- • Fast: Native font rendering vs SVG engine
- • Complete: Full hinting and OpenType features
- • Standard: W3C specification, industry consensus
- • Universal: All browsers adopted by 2013
Modern Recommendations
Always Use WOFF/WOFF2:
- • Primary: WOFF2 (97%+ browsers, 53 KB, best)
- • Fallback: WOFF (99%+ browsers, 90 KB)
- • Performance: Fastest load times
- • Quality: Full hinting support
- • Features: Complete OpenType capabilities
Never Use SVG Fonts:
- • Zero support: Removed from all browsers
- • Worst performance: 3-4× larger, slower
- • No advantages: Inferior to all alternatives
- • Action: Remove from all projects
Modern Web Font Stack (2025)
/* Optimal implementation */
@font-face {
font-family: 'MyFont';
src: url('/fonts/font.woff2') format('woff2'),
url('/fonts/font.woff') format('woff');
font-display: swap;
}
/* WOFF2: 97%+ browsers, 53 KB (primary) */
/* WOFF: 99%+ browsers, 90 KB (fallback) */
/* No SVG: Obsolete, removed, 350 KB bloat */
/* Result: 99%+ coverage, optimal performance */Removing SVG Fonts Checklist
- ☐ Search for .svg font references in CSS
- ☐ Remove url('font.svg#FontName') lines
- ☐ Remove format('svg') declarations
- ☐ Delete .svg font files from server
- ☐ Ensure WOFF2 and WOFF exist
- ☐ Test in modern browsers
- ☐ Verify fonts load correctly
- ☐ Confirm PageSpeed improvement
Summary: WOFF vs SVG
WOFF and SVG fonts represent efficient binary compression versus verbose XML text encoding. WOFF uses zlib on binary font data achieving 90 KB files with fast native rendering. SVG fonts use XML text with verbose markup resulting in 350 KB files (289% larger) with slow XML parsing and SVG rendering. Even gzip-compressed, SVG fonts (210 KB) are 133% larger than WOFF. WOFF achieved universal adoption (99%+ browsers) while SVG fonts were completely rejected—Chrome removed support in 2013, Safari iOS in 2018.
Use WOFF2 (primary) and WOFF (fallback) exclusively for web fonts. Never use SVG fonts—they have zero browser support, worst performance, and no technical advantages. SVG fonts are 289% larger than WOFF, slower to parse and render, lack hinting support, and can't represent advanced OpenType features. Remove SVG font references from all projects immediately. WOFF succeeded because binary efficiency, native rendering, and open standards beat XML verbosity and experimental approaches. SVG fonts are a cautionary tale in format design.
Written & Verified by
Sarah Mitchell
Product Designer, Font Specialist
WOFF vs SVG FAQs
Common questions answered about this font format comparison