Google’s 2014 Logo: Comparing It with Later Versions
How Google’s 2014 serif wordmark differs from the 2015 sans-serif redesign and later marks in typography, geometry, color, scalability and use as a vector asset.
Contents
The short answer: which logo was Google using in 2014?
Throughout 2014, Google used a flat, multicolored serif wordmark. It descended from the serif logotype the company adopted in 1999, which is widely attributed to the Catull typeface. In 2013 Google removed the bevels and drop shadows from that wordmark, leaving a flat serif version. During 2014 the company reportedly adjusted the spacing very slightly. In September 2015 Google replaced the serif wordmark with a geometric sans-serif logotype and introduced a family of related marks, including a four-color “G” icon. So the main comparison is between two different kinds of wordmark: the 2014 serif and the post-2015 sans-serif. The changes after 2015 have mostly affected icons and supporting marks rather than the wordmark.
Scope note: “the Google logo 2014” refers to the primary Google wordmark from that year. It does not cover Doodles, which are temporary event artwork, or the separate logos for individual products.
What changed within 2014 itself
Commentators widely reported, and Google acknowledged, a tiny kerning change made in 2014. Kerning is the spacing between specific pairs of letters. In the reported change, the second “g” moved about one pixel to the right, and the “l” moved down and to the right by about one pixel. This is a documented claim from contemporary coverage. No specimens came with this brief, so it could not be confirmed here by overlaying the two versions. In practical terms, the early-2014 and late-2014 wordmarks look the same at normal viewing sizes. If you need to know which variant a particular file shows, compare it against a dated, authoritative specimen at high magnification.
How the 2014 wordmark compares with the 2015 redesign and later marks
The table below sets the versions against the same criteria. Entries labeled observable describe features visible in commonly circulated specimens of each logo. Entries labeled documented repeat claims made by Google or reported in press coverage. Entries labeled interpretation are editorial judgment. The visual comparisons assume both logos are shown at the same size on a white background. None of the evidence supplied for this article included side-by-side specimens under controlled viewing conditions.
| Criterion | 2014 flat serif wordmark | 2015 sans-serif wordmark and later marks |
| Typeface style | Observable: serif letterforms with modulated strokes (thick and thin parts), descended from the 1999 Catull-based logotype | Observable: geometric sans-serif with largely uniform stroke weight; Google documented it as a custom typeface, later called Product Sans |
| Geometry | Observable: calligraphic stroke contrast, bracketed serifs, traditional bowl shapes | Observable: circular bowls, simple construction, and an “e” with an angled crossbar |
| Spacing | Documented: fine one-pixel kerning adjustment to the second “g” and the “l” in 2014 | Observable: open, even spacing suited to the simpler letterforms |
| Color sequence | Observable: blue, red, yellow, blue, green, red across G-o-o-g-l-e | Observable: the same color sequence; the exact hues were revised, but no verified color values were supplied for this article |
| Surface treatment | Observable: flat, with no bevel or shadow since the 2013 update | Observable: flat |
| Small-size legibility | Interpretation: the thin strokes and serifs lose definition at very small sizes and low resolutions | Documented: Google said the redesign was intended to work at small sizes and across screens; not independently tested here |
| System of marks | Observable: one main wordmark; the small icon was a separate design | Observable and documented: the wordmark is part of a system that includes a four-color “G” icon and animated dots; the “G” icon itself has since been revised, most recently with color gradients |
| File size claims | No comparable figure was supplied | Documented: Google stated that an optimized version of the new logo was a few hundred bytes, against roughly 14 kilobytes for the previous logo; not independently tested here |
Typography and geometry
Typography is the biggest difference between the versions. The 2014 wordmark uses stroke contrast and serifs, which are the small finishing strokes at the ends of letters. These give it a traditional, bookish look. The 2015 wordmark drops the serifs and is built from simpler shapes based on circles and straight lines. As editorial interpretation: the 2014 version reads as a classic web-era mark, while the later version is designed to sit alongside app icons and interface typography.
Color
All of these versions use the same four brand colors in the same order, which is why the 2015 change still looked familiar to most people. The exact color values differ between versions. No verified values were supplied for this article, so none are given here. If exact color matters for your project, take the values from official brand material for the version you are reproducing. Do not sample them from screenshots, because compression and display color profiles change the pixels.
Scalability
Google explained the 2015 redesign mainly in terms of scaling: one coherent system that works from large displays down to small icons. Google also made claims about file size and small-size performance. Those claims are reported here without independent tests and should be read as the company’s own statements. The general design principle behind them is well established. Uniform strokes and simple curves usually survive reduction and rasterization better than thin serifs and fine contrast, and rasterization is the conversion of a vector drawing into pixels.
Working with vector files of the 2014 logo
- Check the geometry, not the file name. A file labeled SVG, EPS or AI may contain only an embedded raster image, or a vector trace with uneven curves. Open it in a vector editor and inspect the paths, anchor points and fills before you rely on it.
- Check which variant it shows. Compare the spacing around the second “g” and the “l” against a dated reference if the difference between early-2014 and late-2014 artwork matters to you.
- Avoid redrawing the letters in a lookalike font. Typefaces resembling Catull are not the logotype, and differences in spacing and stroke detail will show.
- Remember that finding a file is not permission to use it. The Google wordmark is a trademark in every version. Whether a downloadable file exists tells you nothing about whether you may reuse it, so check Google’s brand-use terms for your intended purpose.
Which version should you use?
The right choice depends on your purpose. For historical work, such as a design timeline, a redesign case study or a period-accurate mockup of 2014, use the flat serif wordmark and note which side of the kerning change your file represents. For anything that refers to Google as it is today, use the current official marks from Google’s brand resources rather than any archived version. Choosing between the versions on looks alone does not apply if you are depicting the actual brand, because the correct version is set by the date you are showing.
Evidence gaps
No logo specimens, color specifications, vector files or performance tests were supplied for this article. The visual comparisons above therefore rely on widely circulated versions of each logo. The kerning, file-size and scalability claims are attributed to Google or to contemporary reporting and have not been verified here. To make a stricter comparison, overlay official vector specimens of each version at the same size and test them at your actual output sizes.