Fonts load from Google Fonts. Your sample text stays in this browser.
A shortlist, not a popularity contest
There is nothing wrong with having favourite typefaces. The trouble starts when the favourite becomes the answer before you have really looked at the brief. I want the type to tell me something about the brand, rather than simply tell me which fonts the designer likes.
I am using underused loosely here. This is a personal shortlist, not a ranking based on downloads or Google usage data. Some will be familiar to you already. What interests me is how differently they behave with real words: a warm serif can make a sentence feel generous, while a wider display face can give the very same sentence a bit of nerve.
The examples below are live type, so please play with them. Put in the client name, the difficult headline or the sentence that refuses to sit nicely. That is where a typeface starts to reveal whether it is right for the job. A beautiful alphabet is lovely, but it is not the brief.
01 / Fraunces: a warmer kind of confidence
Fraunces has a warmth I find really appealing. Its rounded, generous forms give a headline a softer kind of confidence. I would try it for thoughtful hospitality, an expressive food brand or a business that wants its expertise to feel approachable. It has character without needing the whole page to shout.
My suggestion is to give it room. A short sentence at a confident size is usually more persuasive than a paragraph set with every available flourish. Try pairing a Fraunces heading with a quieter sans for navigation and longer reading, then test whether the contrast still feels like one brand.
Watch the familiar trap of equating a friendly serif with premium positioning. If the photography, language and layout say something different, type alone cannot close that gap. Use it because its tone belongs to the organisation, rather than because it looks expensive.
Different words. Different possibilities.
Explore Fraunces on Google Fonts ↗02 / Newsreader: make the words the feature
Newsreader makes me want to give the words a little more room. I would bring it into an editorial exploration where there is a proper story to tell: an interview, a cultural organisation or an opinion piece with something useful to say. A good serif can make a page feel like somewhere to stay for a while.
Set a real introduction in it before deciding. Look at punctuation, italics, paragraph density and how the page behaves on a narrow screen. A beautiful headline is only one part of an editorial system; captions, pull quotes and subheadings need to sit comfortably alongside it.
For a pairing, start with a restrained sans and avoid making both voices compete. I would rather have a clearly defined reading face and a quiet utility face than two equally expressive fonts fighting over a cookie notice.
Different words. Different possibilities.
Explore Newsreader on Google Fonts ↗03 / Instrument Sans: useful without being anonymous
Sometimes the useful discovery is a sans that changes the temperature by a small amount. Instrument Sans deserves a place in that conversation. Try it where the identity needs clarity, but the familiar default feels a little too familiar.
A good test is a service page, not a logo. Build the heading, body copy, button, form label and numerical detail together. Does the family create a convincing hierarchy without unnecessary weight changes? Does a long service name still look intentional? Does the small text remain comfortable?
A quieter face leaves more space for other ingredients. Photography, colour and the rhythm of the layout can carry the personality. That is often a better answer than asking every letter to become a distinctive brand asset.
Different words. Different possibilities.
Explore Instrument Sans on Google Fonts ↗04 / Onest: a fresh foundation
Onest is another candidate for briefs where the everyday system matters as much as the campaign headline. Use it as a fresh comparison when you are evaluating straightforward sans options, particularly across content-heavy digital layouts.
Try the unglamorous material early: an address, opening hours, a pricing table, a long email address and a short error message. These are the places where a type system either feels dependable or begins to unravel. Check the characters your audience actually needs, including names, currencies and punctuation.
My pairing instinct would be to introduce contrast through scale first. You may not need a second family at all. A disciplined single-family system can feel far more confident than an elaborate pairing with no clear job for either font.
Different words. Different possibilities.
Explore Onest on Google Fonts ↗05 / Recursive: a different voice for the details
Recursive is worth exploring when the brief leaves room for a technical or more unusual typographic voice. I would start with a small experiment: a project label, a piece of editorial navigation or a short statement that needs a different cadence.
Treat that contrast as a deliberate ingredient. A technical-looking face does not automatically make a technology business more credible, just as a handwritten face does not make a business more human. The connection needs to make sense in the wider identity.
Compare the available styles on the official specimen and choose a restrained starting point. The interesting question is whether the face helps people understand the hierarchy. If everything becomes a special typographic moment, there is no longer anything special about it.
Different words. Different possibilities.
Explore Recursive on Google Fonts ↗06 / Commissioner: give the everyday a second look
Commissioner belongs on a comparison board when you want a working sans with a different feel from your habitual choices. It is particularly useful to test it against the typography already being considered, using precisely the same content and dimensions.
Do not judge it from a large alphabet alone. Put the real homepage statement above a practical paragraph. Add a testimonial, a list and a form. Small changes in rhythm and spacing are much easier to judge when the system is doing an actual job.
I would explore it alongside an editorial serif if the brand needs a balance of explanation and expression. Keep that recommendation provisional: the best pairing is the one that supports the content, not the one that wins a side-by-side font pairing graphic.
Different words. Different possibilities.
Explore Commissioner on Google Fonts ↗07 / Unbounded: let a short statement take up space
Unbounded is the one I would reach for when a short statement needs to take up space. It invites a bolder composition: fewer words, more presence. I would test it on an event title or launch message long before asking it to do the quieter work of a service page.
Its presence makes restraint especially important. Leave space around the words and check the longest likely headline, not just the shortest one. A design that looks brilliant with four letters can become awkward with a real product name.
On mobile, rethink the composition rather than simply shrinking everything. Line breaks, word length and available width all become part of the design. Keep the reading experience clear, and let a quieter face take responsibility for longer explanations.
Different words. Different possibilities.
Explore Unbounded on Google Fonts ↗08 / Anybody: a brief with a little more nerve
Anybody is worth opening when the brief needs a little more nerve. I like the idea of testing it with a sentence that is already confident, rather than asking the typeface to make a vague message exciting. The words and the letters need to be pulling in the same direction.
My first experiment would be black type, a plain background and one sentence. Removing the surrounding decoration tells you whether the letters are doing something useful or merely adding noise. Then introduce the brand colours and images one at a time.
The temptation with a distinctive face is to use it everywhere. Resist that until you have tested the full system. A font can be a brilliant lead performer without being the right choice for body copy, navigation or a legal paragraph.
Different words. Different possibilities.
Explore Anybody on Google Fonts ↗How to choose without making the website heavier
Take three candidates into the same small prototype. Use the actual headline, two paragraphs, a button and the most awkward piece of content you can find. Review it on a phone, then ask someone who has not seen the brief what kind of business they think it represents.
Check the licence for the exact family and files you intend to use, confirm language coverage, and involve your developer before signing off. Limit the styles you load to those the design uses. A specimen page can afford an exploration; a production homepage should not download eight families just because the mood board did.
And give it a sensible fallback. I want the page to remain readable while the font loads, not hold its breath waiting for the identity to arrive. If you are exploring type for a new brand, I would love to hear what you are trying. Sometimes the most useful next step is a fresh pair of eyes on the same three options.
Sources & further reading
Primary references checked on 17 October 2026. Recommendations and visual explorations are our own.
Something you are exploring?
If this has sparked an idea, or you are wrestling with a design decision, I would love to hear about it. Tell us what you are working on and ask for me.
Ask Laura a question ↗Explore brand & creative ↗