---
title: "Comparison of MonoLisa vs. Fira Code"
published: 2026-08-11
updated: 2026-08-11
keywords:
  [
    "MonoLisa vs Fira Code",
    "Fira Code alternative",
    "coding fonts",
    "programming fonts",
  ]
authors: ["Juho Vepsäläinen", "Marcus Sterz"]
---

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.

![Summary infographic comparing MonoLisa and Fira Code](/images/comparison-monolisa-vs-fira-code-summary.svg)

## 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        | <span style={{ color: "var(--ml-colors-primary, currentColor)" }}>Yes</span>                | 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         | <span style={{ color: "var(--ml-colors-primary, currentColor)" }}>Yes</span>                | <span style={{ color: "var(--ml-colors-primary, currentColor)" }}>Yes</span>            |
| **Terminal symbols**         | Similar         | <span style={{ color: "var(--ml-colors-primary, currentColor)" }}>Yes</span>                | <span style={{ color: "var(--ml-colors-primary, currentColor)" }}>Yes</span>            |
| **Proportional counterpart** | Similar         | <span style={{ color: "var(--ml-colors-primary, currentColor)" }}>Yes</span>, MonoLisa Text | <span style={{ color: "var(--ml-colors-primary, currentColor)" }}>Yes</span>, Fira Sans |
| **Price**                    | Fira Code       | Paid, including [free trial access](https://monolisa.dev/buy/trial) and a customizer        | Free and open source                                                                    |
| **Source**                   | -               | [monolisa.dev](https://www.monolisa.dev/)                                                   | [Fira Code GitHub repository](https://github.com/tonsky/FiraCode)                       |

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.

<picture>
  <source media="(max-width: 640px)" srcSet="/images/comparison-monolisa-vs-fira-code-texture-mobile.svg" />
  <img src="/images/comparison-monolisa-vs-fira-code-texture.svg" alt="Rendered SVG comparing MonoLisa and Fira Code code texture" width="100%" />
</picture>

## 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`.

<picture>
  <source media="(max-width: 640px)" srcSet="/images/comparison-monolisa-vs-fira-code-ligatures-mobile.svg" />
  <img src="/images/comparison-monolisa-vs-fira-code-ligatures.svg" alt="Rendered SVG comparing MonoLisa and Fira Code operator and ligature behavior" width="100%" />
</picture>

## 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.    |
| <code>1lI&#124;</code> | 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.

<picture>
  <source media="(max-width: 640px)" srcSet="/images/comparison-monolisa-vs-fira-code-italics-mobile.svg" />
  <img src="/images/comparison-monolisa-vs-fira-code-italics.svg" alt="Rendered SVG showing MonoLisa Code italic and style samples" width="100%" />
</picture>

## Terminal and console support

Both measured well here: Powerline 6/6, box drawing 128/128, block elements 32/32, and internally aligned vertical metrics.

<picture>
  <source media="(max-width: 640px)" srcSet="/images/comparison-monolisa-vs-fira-code-terminal-mobile.svg" />
  <img src="/images/comparison-monolisa-vs-fira-code-terminal.svg" alt="Rendered SVG comparing MonoLisa and Fira Code terminal symbols and box drawing" width="100%" />
</picture>

## Licensing and availability

Fira Code is free and open source. MonoLisa Code is a paid typeface with [free trial access](https://monolisa.dev/buy/trial) 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](https://github.com/rosettatype/hyperglot) 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.