Lora vs Merriweather
Two serif faces, set live below in their own letters — then the honest take on which to pick and when.
At a glance
- Feel
- Elegant, calligraphic
- Sturdy, robust
- Best for
- Refined long reads
- Dense text, rough rendering
- Weights
- 400–700, four steps
- 400 / 700
- Designer
- Olga Karpushina, 2011
- Sorkin Type, 2010
LoraMerriweather
The honest take
Two of the most reliable screen serifs for long-form reading, tuned a little differently. Merriweather (Sorkin Type, 2010) is built for density and small-size sturdiness: a large x-height, sturdy serifs and slightly condensed proportions make it hold up in dense articles and low-resolution conditions, though it ships only in 400 and 700. Lora (Olga Karpushina, 2011) has brushed, calligraphic roots and moderate contrast, giving a slightly more elegant, literary texture, and it offers 400–700 in four steps for finer typographic control. Choose Merriweather for maximum robustness in body copy, especially where space is tight or rendering is rough. Choose Lora for a more refined, book-like feel and the extra weight options. Both are excellent body serifs; Merriweather is the workhorse, Lora the slightly more graceful read.
The x-ray
Same size, same baseline — Lora over Merriweather. Where they agree the strokes merge; where they argue, fringes.
“Hamburgefonstiv” is the type designer's test word — it carries most of the shapes that give a face away.
Read more
More about each face: Lora · Merriweather