← Back to all posts

Comparison of MonoLisa vs. Fira Code

Written by Juho Vepsäläinen, Marcus Sterz on . Last updated on .

Tags: MonoLisa vs Fira CodeFira Code alternativecoding fontsprogramming fonts

If you are weighing Fira Code against MonoLisa Code, this article shows the same code in both fonts and calls out the details that may change how it reads. We compare punctuation, ligatures, ambiguous characters, italics, and terminal symbols before summarizing the feature differences. The italic specimen uses a software slant for Fira Code and a separately drawn italic for MonoLisa, so keep that setup in mind as you look through the examples.

Reading texture

MonoLisa’s commas and bracket ends are more angular and heavier in this sample. The enlargements isolate those details; in parseToken, they give punctuation more emphasis beside the letters, especially around the array access and the returned object.

Code Texture: MonoLisa Code vs. Fira Code Enlarged commas and opening square brackets from parseToken. Circles point to the comma tips and bracket ends in both fonts. The complete code sample follows. Code Texture: MonoLisa Code vs. Fira Code Enlarged commas and opening square brackets from parseToken. Circles point to the comma tips and bracket ends in both fonts. The complete code sample follows.

Coding ligatures and character variants

Fira Code links the two ampersands in &&, while MonoLisa keeps two distinct shapes. Both join !== and the arrows, so the choice is also about how familiar each symbol remains when you scan an expression.

Coding Ligatures: MonoLisa Code vs. Fira Code Coding Ligatures: MonoLisa Code vs. Fira Code

Characters that are easy to confuse

Compare 0O, then 1lI|: which details help you separate each character? Ligatures are disabled here, so you can also inspect rn beside m and the individual strokes in punctuation. Try these pairs at your usual editor size.

Ambiguous Glyphs: MonoLisa Code vs. Fira Code Ambiguous Glyphs: MonoLisa Code vs. Fira Code

Italics and style range

MonoLisa supplies separately drawn italic forms; Fira Code has no italic font, so we show a software-generated slant. The enlarged pairs highlight MonoLisa’s changed a construction and descending f, while Fira’s upright shapes simply lean; compare those letters in the code below.

Italic Forms: MonoLisa Code vs. Fira Code Enlarged a and f compare upright forms with MonoLisa's drawn italics and Fira Code's software slant. Circles highlight the a construction and f lower ending. The same italic code sample follows in both fonts. MonoLisa uses its separately drawn italic font. Fira Code uses its upright font with a software-generated 10-degree rightward slant. Both render the same code at equal nominal sizes; editor synthesis settings may differ. Italic Forms: MonoLisa Code vs. Fira Code Enlarged a and f compare upright forms with MonoLisa's drawn italics and Fira Code's software slant. Circles highlight the a construction and f lower ending. The same italic code sample follows in both fonts. MonoLisa uses its separately drawn italic font. Fira Code uses its upright font with a software-generated 10-degree rightward slant. Both render the same code at equal nominal sizes; editor synthesis settings may differ.

Terminal symbols

Both fonts include the prompt separators, table borders, and progress-bar characters shown below. The colored segments show how the Powerline arrows meet their backgrounds; the table gives you horizontal and vertical joins to check at your own terminal’s line spacing.

Terminal symbols: MonoLisa Code vs. Fira Code Matching terminal windows with a colored Powerline prompt, box-drawing table, Unicode block progress bars, and a status line. Both fonts use the same text at 22 units with a 33-unit line height. Missing characters use the measured font's missing-glyph outline, with no fallback font. Progress bars use standard Unicode blocks, not MonoLisa-specific symbols. Terminal symbols: MonoLisa Code vs. Fira Code Matching terminal windows with a colored Powerline prompt, box-drawing table, Unicode block progress bars, and a status line. Both fonts use the same text at 22 units with a 33-unit line height. Missing characters use the measured font's missing-glyph outline, with no fallback font. Progress bars use standard Unicode blocks, not MonoLisa-specific symbols.

Which font should you choose?

Choose Fira Code for a free, open-source font with coding ligatures. Try MonoLisa if you want the distinct italic letterforms shown here or prefer its more prominent punctuation; use a file with both comments and code to judge those differences in your editor.

Try MonoLisa in your editor

The free trial includes Regular and Bold with a limited character set. Use it to judge letterforms in your editor; explore coding ligatures, OpenType features, and grade adjustment in the online tester, since those are omitted from the trial. See checkout for current pricing.

At a glance

CategoryMonoLisa CodeFira Code
Languages (measured)*593395
Writing systems5 (Latin, Cyrillic, Greek, Hebrew, Armenian)3 (Latin, Cyrillic, Greek)
Drawn italicsYesNo
Fixed weights106
Variable axesWeight (wght), grade (GRAD)Weight (wght)
Style control15 stylistic sets, 12 character variants10 stylistic sets, 32 character variants
Coding ligaturesYesYes
Terminal symbolsYesYes
Proportional counterpartMonoLisa Text (separate purchase or bundle)Yes, Fira Sans
PricePaid; limited free trialFree and open source
Sourcemonolisa.devFira Code GitHub repository
View comparison infographic MonoLisa Code vs. Fira Code summary infographic A compact comparative infographic showing measured language counts, script coverage, and OpenType feature signals for MonoLisa Code vs. Fira Code.
Measurement notes

The italic comparison renders MonoLisa’s italic font file beside Fira Code Regular with a 10° rightward software slant. The angle matches the magnitude of post.italicAngle in the measured MonoLisa file; HarfBuzz applies it with --font-slant=0.17632698070846498 (the tangent of 10°). Both the enlarged details and the code use this setting. Fira’s upright outlines and advance widths are otherwise unchanged. This is a reproducible example of synthesis, not a claim about every editor’s default angle. Regenerate with node scripts/render-comparison-svgs.mjs scripts/comparison-fonts.local.json fira-code.

The terminal windows use identical text at a nominal 22 px with 33 px table line spacing, ligatures disabled, and the same theme colors. Powerline separators and standard Unicode block progress bars come from each font’s own outlines. Segment backgrounds follow measured glyph advances; missing characters retain the font’s missing-glyph outline with no fallback. Actual terminal line-height and fallback settings may change the joins. Regenerate with node scripts/render-comparison-svgs.mjs scripts/comparison-fonts.local.json --terminal-only.

* Language counts use Hyperglot 0.8.1, run locally with primary orthographies, living languages, and base-character support. Shaping is disabled. The command was:

.venv-hyperglot/bin/hyperglot --no-shaping --orthography primary --status living --check base <font-file>

MonoLisa Code exposes liga, dlig, calt, zero, ss01–ss15, and cv01–cv12; Fira Code exposes calt, zero, ss01–ss10, and cv01–cv32. MonoLisa has 10 named weights in upright and italic styles. Fira Code has 6 fixed weights; its variable file has 5 named upright weights from Light through Bold. Both fonts cover Powerline 6/6, box drawing 128/128, and block elements 32/32, with internally aligned vertical metrics.

The enlarged details use the same font files as the complete specimens, at equal nominal sizes for both fonts. Glyphs are centered independently. The circles are annotations behind the outlines; MonoLisa’s upright and italic details use their respective font files, while Fira’s slanted details use the synthesis described above. Regenerate them with node scripts/render-comparison-svgs.mjs scripts/comparison-fonts.local.json --focus-only.