Both MonoLisa and Fira Code are coding fonts with different priorities. In this comparison, we look at the main differences so you have a better idea of each of their strengths. Consider the infographic below to get the gist of it.
Decision table
| Category | Better fit | MonoLisa Code | Fira Code |
|---|---|---|---|
| Languages* | MonoLisa | 593 | 395 |
| Writing systems | MonoLisa | 5 (Latin, Cyrillic, Greek, Hebrew, Armenian) | 3 (Latin, Cyrillic, Greek) |
| Italics | MonoLisa | Yes | No |
| Fixed weights | MonoLisa | 10 | 6 |
| Variable axes | MonoLisa | 2 (wght, GRAD) |
1 (wght) |
| Style control | MonoLisa | 15 stylistic sets, 12 character variants | 10 stylistic sets, 32 character variants |
| Coding ligatures | Similar | Yes | Yes |
| Terminal symbols | Similar | Yes | Yes |
| Proportional counterpart | Similar | Yes, MonoLisa Text | Yes, Fira Sans |
| Price | Fira Code | Paid, including free trial access and a customizer | Free and open source |
| Source | - | monolisa.dev | Fira Code GitHub repository |
In short: MonoLisa Code wins on coverage and style range. Fira Code wins on price.
Reading texture
MonoLisa’s punctuation elements are angular and stronger in shapes lightly bolder in comparison to Fira’s. We believe this impacts reading speed and the user’s ability to distinguish the particular glyphs.
Coding features
Both fonts support coding ligatures. MonoLisa Code exposes liga, dlig, calt, zero, ss01-ss15, and cv01-cv12; Fira Code exposes calt, zero, ss01-ss10, and cv01-cv32.
Glyph distinction
| Pair | MonoLisa Code | Fira Code |
|---|---|---|
0O |
Zero and capital O are visibly separated by construction and interior shape. | Zero and capital O are distinct, with a different rhythm and counter shape. |
1lI| |
One, lowercase l, capital I, and bar keep separate silhouettes. | The set remains distinguishable, with a more geometric texture. |
| Brackets and quotes | Brackets, braces, parentheses, quotes, and backticks are tuned for dense code. | Shapes are clear and compact for ligature-heavy code. |
| Operators | Operator punctuation stays legible with and without ligatures. | Operator sequences are a core strength, especially when ligatures are enabled. |
Italics and style range
MonoLisa Code includes variable upright and italic files with 10 named weights.
Fira Code has no italics; its variable TTF exposes 5 named upright weights from Light through Bold.
Terminal and console support
Both measured well here: Powerline 6/6, box drawing 128/128, block elements 32/32, and internally aligned vertical metrics.
Licensing and availability
Fira Code is free and open source. MonoLisa Code is a paid typeface with free trial access and a customizer.
Conclusion
Both MonoLisa and Fira Code are strong options for a coding font. Both have their distinctive strengths while MonoLisa comes with a stronger language support and italics, a feature missing from Fira Code.
- Languages were measured locally with Hyperglot 0.8.1 by running
.venv-hyperglot/bin/hyperglot --no-shaping --orthography primary --status living --check base <font-file>: primary orthographies, living languages, base-character support, with shaping disabled.
Top comments (0)