Open Sans vs Roboto

Two sans-serif faces, set live below in their own letters — then the honest take on which to pick and when.

The quick brown fox 0123456789

Open Sanssans-serif

Steve Matteson · 2011 · weights 300, 400, 600, 700

The quick brown fox 0123456789

Robotosans-serif

Christian Robertson · 2011 · weights 400, 500, 700

At a glance

Type tradition
Humanist sans
Grotesque, mechanical skeleton
Best for
Long-form body text
Product UI
Rhythm
Warmer, flowing
Tighter, systematic
Designer
Steve Matteson, 2011
Christian Robertson, 2011

Open SansRoboto

The honest take

Two of the most-served body sans-serifs of the 2010s, both neutral, both safe, but from different type traditions. Open Sans (Steve Matteson, 2011) is a humanist sans — open forms, generous spacing, a slightly warmer rhythm that flows well in long paragraphs. Roboto (Christian Robertson, 2011) has a more mechanical, grotesque skeleton softened by friendly curves, and it is tuned for Android's UI grid. For running text on a content site, Open Sans usually feels a touch more comfortable and less rigid. For a product interface, especially anything Android-adjacent, Roboto's tighter, more systematic rhythm fits the UI better. Both offer 300–700 (Roboto skips 600), and either will disappear into the background exactly as a good body face should.

The x-ray

Same size, same baseline — Open Sans over Roboto. Where they agree the strokes merge; where they argue, fringes.

Hamburgefonstiv

“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: Open Sans · Roboto