Dubsmash’s Old and New Logos: A Design Comparison

Which Dubsmash logo is the old version?

The old Dubsmash logo cannot be identified confidently from the supplied material. No logo specimens, dates or documented version history were provided. Consequently, specific claims about how its lettering, symbol or colors changed would be unsupported.

For a useful comparison, first establish which two assets represent the earlier and later designs. Compare equivalent forms: a standalone symbol with a standalone symbol, or a full logo containing the name with another full logo. Comparing an application icon with a full wordmark—the brand name rendered as a logo—can confuse differences in format with differences caused by a redesign.

What differences should the comparison examine?

Neither version’s appearance is established by the supplied evidence. The following criteria explain what to inspect once comparable specimens are available; they are not findings about Dubsmash’s actual redesign.

• Geometry: Compare the outer silhouette, proportions, curves and corners. Note whether the symbol’s structure changed or whether the apparent difference comes from cropping or presentation.
• Typography: Examine letter shapes, stroke weight, capitalization and distinctive details. Separate changes to the lettering itself from changes in its size.
• Spacing: Compare gaps between letters and between the symbol and name. These relationships affect how compact or open the composition appears.
• Color: Compare the assets on the same background under consistent viewing conditions. Without documented color values, a visible difference cannot establish an exact palette change.
• Composition: Check whether the symbol and name retain the same relative size and arrangement.

Does either version work better at small sizes?

No supplied tests establish that either Dubsmash logo is more legible or recognizable at small sizes. To assess this, render equivalent versions at the same intended display dimensions and on the same background. Inspect whether letter openings remain distinguishable, narrow gaps stay visible and fine details survive.

A simpler appearance alone does not prove better performance. Any recommendation for an interface, avatar or other compact placement should depend on results at that placement’s actual size.

What matters when choosing a vector asset?

Visual accuracy and file construction require separate checks. A filename or vector-associated extension does not establish that a logo consists of editable paths; the file may contain an embedded raster image. Inspect its contents and compare the artwork with a verified specimen of the intended version.

Path-based artwork can support resizing and shape editing. Outlined lettering preserves its drawn appearance without requiring live font text, while live text requires the appropriate font to reproduce that appearance. Neither construction proves that the asset is authentic or that reuse is permitted.

Which version should you choose?

For a historical comparison, choose a verified asset from the period being discussed. For a contemporary representation, confirm which version applies to the relevant date and context. For production work, also verify file construction and usage rights. The evidence supplied does not support naming either Dubsmash version as the stronger design; the next step is to obtain identified specimens and assess them under matching conditions.