Old vs. New Logo: A Practical Before-and-After Evaluation
How to compare an old logo with its redesign: which visual details to check, how to separate documented claims from interpretation, and what to verify before using either version's vector files.
Contents
The short answer
To judge whether a new logo improves on the old one, place both versions side by side at the same size and compare what you can actually see: shape and geometry, typography, color, level of detail, and how each holds up when shrunk or reproduced in one color. Keep three things separate: what you can see, what the brand has officially said about the change, and your own reading of what the change means. A redesign is usually a success when it stays recognizable as the same identity while working better at the sizes and in the places where the logo now appears, such as app icons, social avatars, signage and print.
Scope: which logo, and which version
No specific brand or logo files were provided for this guide, so it does not judge any particular redesign. It gives a method you can apply to any before-and-after pair. Any specific facts about a real redesign, such as the year it launched, the agency involved or the reason given for the change, should come from the brand's own announcements or style guidelines. Do not reconstruct those details from secondhand descriptions.
Before comparing, check that you have the right pair. Many brands keep several variants in use at once, such as a full lockup (symbol plus name), a standalone symbol, a wordmark (the name set as a logo) and simplified versions for small sizes. Comparing the old full lockup with the new standalone icon will make the change look bigger or smaller than it really is. Match like with like.
What to compare in each version
| Attribute | What to look for | Practical implication |
| Silhouette | Overall outline when filled solid black | A distinctive silhouette stays recognizable at small sizes and in one-color use |
| Geometry | Curves vs. straight segments, symmetry, consistent stroke widths, corner treatment | Simpler, consistent geometry usually scales and reproduces more cleanly |
| Detail level | Gradients, shadows, bevels, fine lines, small counters (enclosed spaces in letters) | Fine detail can fill in or disappear at favicon or embroidery sizes |
| Typography | Custom vs. stock typeface, letter spacing, weight, case | Changes here affect legibility and how distinct the name looks from competitors |
| Color | Number of colors, contrast, behavior on light and dark backgrounds | Fewer, higher-contrast colors are easier to reproduce consistently across media |
| Proportions | Aspect ratio of the lockup, symbol-to-text balance | Wide lockups suit headers; compact marks suit square avatars and icons |
| Continuity | Elements carried over from the old version | Retained cues help existing audiences recognize the brand after the change |
A quick stress test shows more than viewing both logos at full size. Render each version at roughly icon size, in solid black, and reversed out in white on a dark background. Differences in robustness that are hard to see in a large presentation image often become obvious under these conditions.
Separating observation, claims and interpretation
- Observable: features anyone can verify by looking, such as the removal of a gradient, a switch from serif to sans-serif lettering, or a reduction from four colors to two.
- Documented: statements the brand or its designers published, such as stated goals like modernization, accessibility or a better fit for digital use. Attribute these to their source rather than presenting them as established fact.
- Interpretation: editorial judgments, such as whether the new version feels friendlier, more generic or more premium. These are legitimate but should be labeled as opinion.
Keeping these apart prevents a common error: treating a brand's stated intent as proof the redesign achieved it. A claim that a new mark is more legible at small sizes, for example, can be checked against the stress test above.
Working with the vector files
If you need either version as a vector asset, meaning artwork built from mathematical paths that scale without losing sharpness, do not rely on the file extension. An SVG, EPS, AI or PDF file can contain an embedded raster image, meaning a grid of pixels that blurs when enlarged, rather than true paths. Open the file in a vector editor and inspect it in outline or wireframe view. Real vector artwork shows clean anchor points and paths. A pasted bitmap shows only a rectangular image box. Also check whether text has been converted to outlines and whether colors are defined as specified brand values.
Finding a logo file online does not mean you may reuse it. Logos are typically protected trademarks, and use is governed by the owner's brand guidelines or license terms. Retired versions are not automatically free to use either. Where possible, get files from the brand's official media or press kit and follow its usage rules.
Practical next step
Identify the exact brand and the two variants you want to compare, collect official images or files for both, and run the side-by-side, small-size and one-color checks described above. Record your findings in the three categories of observable, documented and interpretation. That gives you a defensible conclusion about the redesign and confirms whether the files you hold are usable vector assets. The information gaps that remain until a specific logo is named are the redesign's date, the brand's stated rationale and the actual construction of its source files.