Google’s 2015 Logo: A Before-and-After Design Comparison

The short answer

In September 2015, Google replaced its serif wordmark with a geometric sans-serif wordmark set in a custom typeface the company named Product Sans. The familiar letter-by-letter color sequence (blue, red, yellow, blue, green, red) stayed. The letterforms, stroke style and overall proportions changed. Google presented the redesign as a system rather than a single wordmark. It included the full logotype, a compact four-color "G" for small spaces such as app icons, and a set of animated dots for interactive states such as voice input.

Scope matters when comparing versions. The direct "before" for the 2015 logo is the flat serif wordmark Google introduced in 2013. Many people picture the earlier version with bevels and drop shadows, which the 2013 update had already removed. The 2015 change was therefore not mainly a move from three-dimensional to flat design. It was a change of typeface and of design approach.

What changed: a side-by-side breakdown

The comparison below separates observable design features from Google's documented claims. For a fair visual judgment, view both versions at the same cap height, on the same background and at the same rendering size. Serif details that are clear at large sizes can disappear or blur at small ones, so a comparison at only one size can mislead.

Criterion | Before (2013 flat serif wordmark) | After (2015 Product Sans wordmark)

Typeface style | Serif, with bracketed serifs and calligraphic influence | Geometric sans-serif, no serifs

Stroke contrast | Visible thick-to-thin variation within letters | Near-uniform (monoline) stroke weight

Letter construction | Traditional, pen-derived shapes | Built from simple geometric forms; rounded letters such as the bowls of g, o and e are close to circles

Lowercase g | Serif form tied to a traditional typeface model | Single-story form with an open descender

Letter e | Upright | Slightly rotated, a deliberate playful detail

Color sequence | Blue, red, yellow, blue, green, red | Same sequence, with adjusted shades

Companion marks | Wordmark with a separate small icon in use | Coordinated system: wordmark, four-color G, animated dots

Small-size behavior | Fine serifs and thin strokes are prone to softening at low resolution | Simpler shapes with even strokes hold up better at small sizes (editorial assessment; not tested here)

Geometry and typography

The most visible change is structural. The earlier wordmark took its character from a traditional serif typeface. Its strokes thicken and thin the way pen strokes do, and its serifs give it a bookish, established feel. The 2015 wordmark is built from circles and straight strokes of near-equal weight. Its round letters share the same basic form, which gives the word a consistent rhythm. That consistency is what lets the same visual language carry over into the standalone G and the dots.

"Geometric sans-serif" refers to typefaces whose letters are constructed from basic shapes such as circles and lines, as opposed to shapes derived from handwriting. "Monoline" means the stroke keeps roughly the same thickness throughout. Both traits tend to make a design easier to reproduce cleanly at small sizes and on low-resolution displays. That tendency is a general typographic principle, not a measured result for these two specific logos.

Color

Google kept the four-color identity and the order in which the colors fall across the letters. This preserved recognition despite the new letterforms. The shades were tuned as part of the redesign. This article does not give exact color values, because no verified color specifications were supplied for either version. Anyone who needs exact values should take them from Google's official brand materials, not from sampling screenshots or third-party files, since display profiles and image compression shift colors.

Spacing and proportion

In the 2015 wordmark, the letters look evenly weighted and openly spaced, and the rounded forms read as a single horizontal band. The serif version looks more compact and textured because of its stroke contrast and serifs. No letter-spacing or proportion measurements were supplied, so this comparison stays at the level of visible impression. A precise spacing analysis would require overlaying official vector masters at identical scale.

Scalability and file size

Google explained the redesign partly in terms of performance and adaptability across screen sizes, from phones and watches to large displays. The company reported that a compact version of the new logo file was dramatically smaller than the old one, a few hundred bytes compared with roughly fourteen thousand. This is Google's own figure and has not been independently tested here. Part of the explanation is that simple geometric shapes need less path data to describe, and part is that Google prepared an optimized variant specifically for constrained connections. Ordinary exported files of either logo will not necessarily show the same difference.

The logo system: wordmark, G and dots

Before 2015, the small Google icon did not share a clear visual language with the wordmark. The 2015 system derived a four-color G from the same geometric approach, so the compact mark looks related to the full logo. The animated dots extended the identity into motion, standing in for the logo during listening, thinking and responding states in products. For anyone evaluating the redesign, this matters more than the typeface alone. The 2015 change made the logo a family of assets meant to work in different contexts, rather than one fixed picture.

Tradeoffs: what was gained and what was lost

• Gained: consistency across sizes and devices, because simpler shapes with even strokes survive downscaling with less distortion (expected from the geometry, not measured here).
• Gained: a coherent set of related marks, so the small G, the full wordmark and the animations clearly belong together.
• Gained: a friendlier, more contemporary tone, according to common editorial readings of geometric sans-serifs. This is interpretation, not a measurable property.
• Lost: some distinctiveness of letterform. Geometric sans-serif wordmarks became common among technology brands, so the shapes alone are less unique and recognition depends more on the color sequence.
• Lost: the sense of heritage and craft that the serif typeface conveyed, which some critics preferred.

Which version should you use?

The right choice depends on your purpose. For historical documentation, a timeline or a redesign case study, use the version that was current in the period you describe, and label it with its date. For any present-day reference to Google, use the current official marks. Google has continued to adjust its identity since 2015, including updates to the G icon, so the 2015 artwork may not match current usage. For design study, compare the 2013 and 2015 wordmarks at identical heights from official vector sources. That is the only way to judge geometry and spacing fairly.

Working with vector files of the 2015 logo

A file named as a vector, such as one with an SVG, EPS or AI extension, is not guaranteed to contain clean vector geometry. Some contain embedded raster images, and others contain redrawn approximations rather than the original artwork. Before relying on a file, inspect it.

• Open it in a vector editor and switch to outline or wireframe view. True vector letters show as paths. An embedded bitmap shows as a single rectangle.
• Check whether the lettering is live text or outlined shapes. Product Sans is proprietary, so a file that depends on the font will fall back to a substitute unless the type has been converted to outlines.
• Count and inspect anchor points. Clean geometric letters should have smooth curves with few points. Jagged or excessive points suggest an auto-trace.
• Compare the file against an official specimen at the same size to catch redrawn shapes, a misplaced tilt on the e or incorrect colors.
• Confirm the color values against official brand guidance, not the values stored in an unofficial file.

Being able to download a logo file does not mean you may reuse it. The Google logo is a trademark, and its use is governed by Google's brand and trademark terms. Review those terms for your specific use before including the logo in published or commercial work.

Gaps in this comparison

No logo specimens, color specifications, spacing measurements or rendering tests were supplied for this article. The visual comparisons describe widely observable features of the two wordmarks. Statements about small-size legibility reflect general typographic principles rather than tests. The file-size figure is Google's reported claim. A rigorous evaluation would need official vector masters for both versions, matched viewing conditions and actual rendering tests at target sizes.