WOFF2 vs SVG: Complete Format Comparison
Comprehensive comparison of WOFF2 and SVG font formats covering best-in-class binary compression versus worst-performing XML text, and why SVG fonts are completely obsolete
In Simple Terms
SVG fonts are obsolete with 0% support (removed 2013-2018). WOFF2 is the modern web standard with 97%+ browser support. Never use SVG fonts.WOFF2 is 85% smaller than SVG fonts (53 KB vs 350 KB)—560% size difference. SVG failed due to catastrophic XML bloat and terrible performance.Always use WOFF2 for modern web projects. Best compression available (68% smaller than uncompressed fonts). Remove all SVG font references immediately.
In this article
WOFF2 (Web Open Font Format 2) and SVG fonts represent the absolute extremes of web font technology—the best versus the worst—with WOFF2 being the cutting-edge universal standard with optimal Brotli compression and SVG fonts being the completely failed XML-based experiment that achieved the worst performance of any format. WOFF2, developed by Google, Mozilla, and others and standardized by W3C in 2018, uses state-of-the-art Brotli compression with font-specific preprocessing to achieve 68% size reduction (168 KB → 53 KB), representing the smallest possible web font files with 97%+ browser support. SVG fonts, introduced in SVG 1.1 (2001), encode glyphs as verbose XML text within SVG documents resulting in bloated files 30-100% larger than uncompressed fonts (168 KB → 350 KB) with zero browser support as of 2025.
The staggering distinction is performance: WOFF2 achieves 85% better compression than SVG fonts (53 KB vs 350 KB)—a 560% size difference. Even when gzip-compressed, SVG fonts (210 KB) remain 296% larger than WOFF2 (53 KB). WOFF2's Brotli algorithm with 16 MB dictionary and font preprocessing dramatically outperforms SVG's verbose XML markup where tags, attributes, and namespaces add 50-100% overhead. Chrome removed SVG font support in 2013, Firefox never implemented it, Safari deprecated it in 2018, and the W3C officially deprecated SVG fonts in favor of WOFF. SVG fonts suffer from fundamental flaws: XML text bloat, slow parsing, no hinting support, limited OpenType features, and rendering overhead that made them unsuitable for production use.
This comprehensive guide compares WOFF2 and SVG fonts to demonstrate why WOFF2 represents the pinnacle of web font technology while SVG fonts represent a cautionary tale. You'll learn the technical specifications showing WOFF2's efficient binary compression versus SVG's wasteful XML encoding, performance comparisons demonstrating WOFF2's 85% size advantage, browser compatibility showing WOFF2's universality versus SVG's complete rejection, historical context of why SVG fonts were created and why they failed spectacularly, and modern recommendations to use WOFF2 exclusively. Whether optimizing websites or understanding format design principles, this guide provides essential knowledge about the best and worst approaches to web fonts.
Format Overview
WOFF2 (Web Open Font Format 2)
History and Purpose:
- • Developed by Google (Brotli), Mozilla, others
- • W3C Recommendation (2018)
- • State-of-the-art web font compression
- • Best-in-class performance
- • Industry standard since 2020
Technical Characteristics:
- • Binary format with Brotli compression
- • Font-specific preprocessing
- • 68% size reduction vs uncompressed
- • Fast native font rendering
- • Extension: .woff2
Current Status (2025):
- • Primary web font format (97%+ browsers)
- • Active, optimal performance
- • File size: ~53 KB (typical Latin font)
- • Use case: All modern web delivery
SVG Font Format
History and Purpose:
- • Introduced in SVG 1.1 (2001)
- • Experimental XML-based embedding
- • Never achieved adoption
- • Worst-performing format ever
- • Completely obsolete (2025)
Technical Characteristics:
- • XML text with verbose markup
- • No compression (or gzip external)
- • 108% larger than uncompressed (XML overhead)
- • Slow XML parsing + SVG rendering
- • Extension: .svg (within SVG docs)
Current Status (2025):
- • Zero browser support (0%)
- • W3C deprecated in favor of WOFF
- • File size: ~350 KB (560% larger than WOFF2)
- • DO NOT use under any circumstances
Best vs Worst Web Font Formats
WOFF2 and SVG fonts represent opposite extremes:
- WOFF2: Best compression (53 KB), universal support (97%+), optimal
- SVG: Worst compression (350 KB), zero support (0%), failed
- Size difference: SVG is 560% larger (85% worse)
- Performance: WOFF2 loads 6× faster
- Conclusion: SVG fonts are cautionary tale in format design
Technical Differences
Comprehensive Technical Comparison
| Feature | WOFF2 | SVG |
|---|---|---|
| Data Format | Binary (optimized) | XML/Text (bloated) |
| Compression | Brotli (68% reduction) | None (108% inflation!) |
| File Size | 53 KB (smallest) | 350 KB (560% larger) |
| Parsing Speed | Fast (binary) | Slow (XML + SVG) |
| Rendering | Native font engine | SVG renderer (slower) |
| Hinting | Full support | None |
| OpenType Features | Full support | None |
| Browser Support | 97%+ (universal) | 0% (removed) |
| Status | Best format | Worst format |
Why WOFF2 is Supremely Efficient
Brotli Compression Excellence:
- • 16 MB sliding window (500× larger than zlib)
- • Static dictionary of common patterns
- • Context modeling for font structures
- • Font-specific glyph preprocessing
- • Delta encoding reduces redundancy
- • Result: ~50-200 bytes per glyph compressed
Efficiency: WOFF2 represents the pinnacle of font compression technology.
Why SVG Fonts are Catastrophically Inefficient
XML Overhead Disaster:
- • Tags, attributes, namespaces add 50-100% bloat
- • Path commands as text strings vs binary
- • ~200-500 bytes per glyph (3-5× larger)
- • No compression built in
- • Even gzipped, still 296% larger than WOFF2
- • Example: Letter "A" = 300 bytes XML vs 50 bytes WOFF2
Catastrophe: SVG fonts are 6× larger despite being the same font data.
Technical Problems with SVG Fonts
- Massive XML bloat: 50-100% overhead from markup
- Text encoding waste: Numbers as strings vs binary
- No hinting: Poor rendering at small sizes
- Parsing overhead: XML DOM creation is slow
- Rendering overhead: SVG engine slower than font renderer
- No OpenType: Can't represent advanced typography
- Memory inefficient: DOM nodes consume more RAM
Performance Comparison
File Size Comparison (Open Sans Regular)
| Format | File Size | vs Original | vs WOFF2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTF/TTF | 168 KB | Baseline | — |
| WOFF2 | 53 KB | 68% smaller | Baseline |
| WOFF | 90 KB | 46% smaller | 70% larger |
| SVG (uncompressed) | 350 KB | 108% larger | 560% larger |
| SVG (gzipped) | 210 KB | 25% larger | 296% larger |
Key finding: SVG is worst format ever. Even gzipped, it's 296% larger than WOFF2. Uncompressed SVG is 560% larger!
Load Time Impact (4G Connection)
| Format | Load Time | vs WOFF2 |
|---|---|---|
| WOFF2 (53 KB) | ~0.35s | Fastest |
| WOFF (90 KB) | ~0.6s | 71% slower |
| SVG (350 KB) | ~2.3s | 557% slower |
Impact: SVG fonts take 6× longer to load than WOFF2, devastating UX.
Why WOFF2 Performance is Superior
- • 85% smaller: 53 KB vs 350 KB (560% reduction)
- • 6× faster loading: 0.35s vs 2.3s on 4G
- • Binary parsing: Much faster than XML
- • Native rendering: Font engine beats SVG renderer
- • Better caching: Smaller files = better cache efficiency
- • Lower bandwidth: 297 KB saved per font
Browser Compatibility
Browser Support Timeline
| Browser | WOFF2 | SVG |
|---|---|---|
| Chrome | ✓ (36+ / 2014) | ✗ Removed 2013 |
| Firefox | ✓ (39+ / 2015) | ✗ Never |
| Safari | ✓ (10+ / 2016) | ✗ Deprecated 2018 |
| Safari iOS | ✓ (10+ / 2016) | ✗ Removed 2018 |
| Edge | ✓ | ✗ Never |
Current Status (2025): WOFF2: 97%+ support. SVG fonts: 0% support.
Why WOFF2 Achieved Universal Adoption
- • Best technology: Superior compression won on merit
- • Open standard: W3C process enabled trust
- • Performance gains: Clear benefits motivated adoption
- • Industry backing: Google, Mozilla, Microsoft supported
- • Easy transition: Drop-in replacement for WOFF
Why SVG Fonts Failed Spectacularly
- Worst performance: 6× larger files, 6× slower loading
- Technical flaws: XML bloat, no hinting, slow rendering
- Browser rejection: Chrome removed, Firefox never added
- W3C deprecated: Officially abandoned in favor of WOFF
- No use case: Never better than alternatives at anything
Historical Context
Format Evolution Timeline
- 2001: SVG 1.1 introduces SVG fonts (experimental)
- 2008-2012: Safari iOS briefly uses SVG (pre-WOFF)
- 2012: WOFF becomes W3C standard, SVG obsolete
- 2013: Chrome removes SVG font support
- 2016: W3C officially deprecates SVG fonts
- 2018: Safari iOS removes SVG fonts, WOFF2 becomes W3C Recommendation
- 2025: WOFF2 universal (97%+), SVG 0%
Lessons from SVG Font Failure
- Conceptual ≠ practical: "Fonts are vectors, SVG is vectors" seemed elegant but failed
- Performance matters: 6× worse performance is unacceptable
- Text isn't efficient: XML encoding wastes massive space
- Binary wins: Optimized binary beats verbose text
- Purpose-built wins: Font-specific format beats general SVG
Modern Recommendations
Always Use WOFF2:
- • Best compression: 85% better than SVG (53 KB vs 350 KB)
- • Best performance: 6× faster loading
- • Universal support: 97%+ browsers
- • Best features: Full hinting and OpenType
- • Industry standard: W3C Recommendation
Never Use SVG Fonts:
- • Zero support: 0% browser coverage (removed everywhere)
- • Worst performance: 560% larger, 6× slower
- • No advantages: Literally nothing SVG does better
- • W3C deprecated: Officially abandoned format
- • Action: Remove from all projects immediately
Optimal Web Font Stack (2025)
/* Perfect modern 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 (best) */
/* WOFF: 99%+ browsers, 90 KB (fallback) */
/* No SVG: 0% support, 350 KB catastrophe */
/* Result: Best performance possible */SVG Font Removal Checklist
- ☐ Search for .svg font references
- ☐ Remove url('font.svg#Name') from CSS
- ☐ Delete format('svg') declarations
- ☐ Delete .svg font files from server
- ☐ Ensure WOFF2 exists as primary
- ☐ Ensure WOFF exists as fallback
- ☐ Test in modern browsers
- ☐ Measure performance improvement
Summary: WOFF2 vs SVG
WOFF2 and SVG fonts represent the absolute extremes of web font technology—the best versus the worst. WOFF2 (W3C 2018) uses state-of-the-art Brotli compression achieving 68% size reduction (168 KB → 53 KB) with 97%+ browser support. SVG fonts (SVG 1.1 2001) use verbose XML encoding achieving negative compression—108% size inflation (168 KB → 350 KB) with 0% browser support. WOFF2 is 85% more efficient than SVG fonts (53 KB vs 350 KB), a 560% size difference.
Use WOFF2 as primary web font format. Never use SVG fonts—they have zero browser support, catastrophic performance (6× larger files, 6× slower loading), and no advantages whatsoever. Remove SVG fonts from all projects. W3C officially deprecated SVG fonts in favor of WOFF. Chrome removed support in 2013, Safari in 2018. SVG fonts are a cautionary tale demonstrating how conceptually interesting ideas can fail when technical execution is flawed. WOFF2 represents the pinnacle of web font technology through purpose-built binary compression.
Written & Verified by
Sarah Mitchell
Product Designer, Font Specialist
WOFF2 vs SVG FAQs
Common questions answered about this font format comparison