How good is the webfont solution compared to the current @font-face standard?

I guess the title says it all. I’ve been successfully working with @font-face (with near-perfect cross-browser support, if you use all the hacks).

However, a client really wants to use Helvetica, and for that you need to use Montype’s solution from

Has anyone come across a comprehensive comparison, or have first-hand experience with both approaches? Are there any downsides (other than a monthly subscription fee!!!) to the webfont approach?


My name is Matt and I manage the and Webfonts Twitter accounts. I wanted to weigh in with some additional information from our support staff.

We serve four formats (WOFF, TTF, EOT, SVG) depending on what the browser is compatible with and the claims of a non-JS version are accurate (for paid subscribers). You are able to link to a CSS file which declares the @font-face definition including all four formats in a way that all of the major browsers can properly read and import the version they’re compatible with (even IE all the way back to 4).

You also mention SSL being a potential issue. All of our subscribers, free or not, can use SSL-encrypted versions of our service by simply changing the provided tag’s URL from “http” to “https”.

Hope this helps shed some more light on your issues. Please don’t hesitate to respond or tweet more questions @fontscom!


Source : Link , Question Author : Tom Auger , Answer Author : Matt

Leave a Comment