Font comparison and review: Atkinson Hyperlegible Mono Published: July 22nd, 2025 Updated: July 22nd, 2025 Recently, I modified anthes.is to use Atkinson Hyperlegible Next for sans-serif and Atkinson Hyperlegible Mono for monospace. Following the principle of eating your own dog food, I also switched to Atkinson Hyperlegible Mono in my terminal. After a month of daily use, I can now assess this font’s practical advantages and compare it to established programming fonts like JetBrains Mono and Fira Code. Download links: Table of contents On character distinction and readability Understanding Atkinson Hyperlegible Mono’s strengths requires examining the readability challenges programming fonts must address. While many fonts distinguish between 0 and O , or 1 , l , and I , these represent only two of many cases where character distinction matters. Typographers call lookalike characters “homoglyphs.” The examples below showcase both homoglyphs and “mirror image” glyphs. Screenshots in this section come from Evaluating Fonts: Font Family Selection for Accessibility & Display Readability. Multi-character homoglyphs Multi-character homoglyphs occur when a sequence of glyphs appear to form a single character. For example, cl can resemble d . Monospace fonts reduce this problem, since each character occupies equal horizontal space. In the “worse” example, letters blend together to resemble different characters. The “better” examples use subtle details to prevent this—like Convergence’s curly y and Quando’s serifs. Single character homoglyphs Single character homoglyphs occur when one glyph resembles another—such as 8 and B . Several problems emerge in the “worse” examples. In Fugaz One, the O and 0 appear indistinguishable. Nearly the same applies to u , v , and w . and appear indistinguishable. Nearly the same applies to , , and . The 1 , l , and I look identical in Gill Sans. The “better” examples address these concerns through deliberate design choices. SecularOne uses a circle for O and an oval for 0 , while the u , v , and w maintain distinct shapes. Mirror image glyphs Mirror image glyphs occur when flipping one character creates another—like d and b . Serif fonts address this by adding distinguishing serifs, but sans-serif fonts must find other solutions. Montserrat achieves visual harmony, but creates mirror images. Convergence solves this with a curly q tail and asymmetrical spurs that distinguish d from b . Scenarios where character distinction matters Character distinction proves important in several scenarios: Debugging the results of a Structured Query Language (SQL) query, like SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = 'B510' , only to realize you meant SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = '8510' . , only to realize you meant . Copying hexadecimal output by hand from an airgapped machine. Or writing down GNU Privacy Guard (GPG) key fingerprints down on paper. Distinguishing between similar commit hashes when cherry-picking or reverting in git, such as a1c4e8b versus a1c4e8d . versus . Command-line flags, like -1 and -l . These examples illustrate that visual distinctiveness proves important in many situations. Still, some questions remain: what informed Atkinson Hyperlegible’s design process, and what makes Atkinson Hyperlegible Mono special compared to other programming fonts? About the Atkinson Hyperlegible font family The Atkinson Hyperlegible family comes from the Braille Institute. Approaching their centennial in 2019, the institute hired Applied Design Works to develop a new brand identity. Applied Design Works needed a font that balanced character differentiation with visual harmony. When existing fonts failed to meet their specific accessibility and branding requirements, they designed their own, naming it after the institute’s founder: J. Robert Atkinson. Atkinson Hyperlegible earned Fast Company’s 2019 Innovation By Design award. By 2025, Atkinson Hyperlegible generated over 43 million weekly impressions via Google Fonts. The Braille Institute then released enhanced versions: Atkinson Hyperlegible Next and Atkinson Hyperlegible Mono. The Next variant of Atkinson Hyperlegible expands from 2 to 7 weights and extends language support from 27 to 150+ languages. The Mono version addresses what the Braille Institute called “one of the most requested additions”—a variant for developers. The Atkinson Hyperlegible family’s unique design features The Braille Institute, Applied Design Works, and Material Design all detail these design features. Since visual examples showcase typography better than descriptions, this article includes images from Material Design’s blog post. Annotated images show the proportional version. Where the monospace version differs significantly, non-annotated comparison images follow. Distinct silhouettes The B features two bowls of different sizes while the 8 combines a small circle atop a larger oval. Enhanced letterforms This image highlights several enhancements: the j features an exaggerated tail, the I gains horizontal top and bottom bars, the i and l get serifs, and the ! increases spacing between its dot and vertical stroke. Since these specific glyphs differ significantly between versions, here’s the monospace variant for comparison: Key differences include: The j and l gain longer feet and leftward serifs. and gain longer feet and leftward serifs. The I extends its horizontal bars. extends its horizontal bars. The i adds a horizontal bottom and longer leftward serif. Asymmetrical spurs and exaggerated descenders The designers used two techniques to distinguish mirror image glyphs: Asymmetrical spurs distinguish b and d —the d features a thicker spur that juts out more. Exaggerated descenders separate p and q —the q extends out into a longer, sweeping tail. Comparison to JetBrains Mono and Fira Code How does Atkinson Hyperlegible Mono compare to established programming fonts like JetBrains Mono and Fira Code? While many monospace fonts target readability, direct comparison reveals Atkinson Hyperlegible Mono’s specific advantages. This comparison focuses on legibility features rather than stylistic preferences or minor aesthetic differences. Single homoglyphs comparison These fonts appear nearly identical at first glance, requiring closer examination to spot the differences. JetBrains Mono adds a serif to the 7 to distinguish it from the Z . to distinguish it from the . Fira Code uses a curved hook on the j and smaller curved serif on the l , distinguishing them within the jIil1! group. and smaller curved serif on the , distinguishing them within the group. Atkinson Hyperlegible Mono provides the strongest distinction between 8 , B , 5 , and S . The j and l feature asymmetrical serifs, while the 5 uses a diagonal rather than vertical downstroke. Here the differences become more apparent. JetBrains Mono struggles with 0 , O , and Q similarity, though G and 6 maintain good distinction. y and v appear more similar than in other fonts. , , and similarity, though and maintain good distinction. and appear more similar than in other fonts. Fira Code’s 0 and O distinguish themselves through a slash and width variation, but G and 6 appear similar. and distinguish themselves through a slash and width variation, but and appear similar. Atkinson Hyperlegible Mono excels in this comparison. The Q features a distinctive middle line, while the 0 uses a reverse slash to avoid confusion with the null sign in math and the slashed O in Danish/Norwegian. Mirror glyphs comparison JetBrains Mono provides the least distinction, with d , b , q , and p appearing as true mirrors. The a and e also show similarity. , , , and appearing as true mirrors. The and also show similarity. Fira Code provides subtle distinction between d , b , q , and p , though noticing the differences requires close examination. The g and p face the same way, and the g appears more ornate. a and e remain distinct. , , , and , though noticing the differences requires close examination. The and face the same way, and the appears more ornate. and remain distinct. Atkinson Hyperlegible Mono achieves the strongest distinction between d , b , q , and p through its asymmetrical design features. The a and e also maintain clear differentiation. Programming symbols comparison The programming symbols comparison reveals interesting trade-offs for Atkinson Hyperlegible Mono. JetBrains Mono excels at distinguishing . from , and : from ; . Ditto for () , [] , and {} . from and from . Ditto for , , and . Fira Code also handles () , [] , and {} well. , , and well. Atkinson Hyperlegible Mono shows weaker [] and {} distinction. JetBrains Mono maintains consistent horizontal length for + and = , but shortens - relative to those operators. and , but shortens relative to those operators. Fira Code uses uniform length for + , = , and - . - and _ share similar length. The /\ characters join together and render smaller compared to the other fonts. , , and . and share similar length. The characters join together and render smaller compared to the other fonts. Atkinson Hyperlegible Mono varies all operator lengths for distinction. The - and _ show great differentiation, while * reduces in size and ascends above + for clarity. The <> characters remain separate rather than joining. Installation and configuration These instructions apply to Unix-like operating systems. In other words: Linux, Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) derivatives, and other similar operating systems. While the Braille Institute offers direct downloads, they require email registration and End User License Agreement (EULA) acceptance for an open source font. Open source repositories provide a better alternative. Make sure you have git installed and available, then clone the googlefonts/atkinson-hyperlegible-next-mono repository on Github. $ git clone https://github.com/googlefonts/atkinson-hyperlegible-next-mono Create the ~/.local/share/fonts directory. $ mkdir -p ~/.local/share/fonts Install Atkinson Hyperlegible Mono in ~/.local/share/fonts . $ cp ./atkinson-hyperlegible-next-mono/fonts/ttf/*.ttf ~/.local/share/fonts/ Build font information cache files. $ fc-cache -fv Configure Atkinson Hyperlegible Mono as your default monospace font system-wide and per application. The Arch Wiki’s font configuration guide covers system-wide setup. Terminal emulators and code editors typically set font through settings menus or configuration files. Caveats Some versions of Atkinson Hyperlegible Mono don’t include the backtick/grave symbol. Applied Design Works specializes in branding rather than typeface design. Max Kohler’s development notes indicate Applied Design Works focused primarily on readers with vision difficulties rather than readers with dyslexia, though they expect the accessibility features to benefit both groups. The font’s commercial origins and the creators’ branding incentives may influence legibility claims. Atkinson Hyperlegible Mono lacks programming ligature support. I view this as a feature and not a bug, but some may prefer a font with ligatures. Legibility claims lack peer-reviewed research support. While Atkinson Hyperlegible performed well in the Readability Group Survey, this measured preference rather than objective performance. Internal testing used vision simulation and reading metrics, but independent scientific validation remains absent. Other resources