The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog
Times New Roman vs Lora
A newspaper classic from 1932 against a screen-era text serif released in 2011. Times New Roman is the condensed, space-saving transitional serif Stanley Morison and Victor Lardent made for The Times, while Lora is Cyreal's calligraphy-rooted serif, drawn by Olga Karpushina and Alexei Vanyashin and tuned for reading on screens.
Times New Roman is a commercial font, so it is shown here in Tinos, its closest free alternative. All free alternatives to Times New Roman →
The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog
- Times New Roman was engineered for newsprint economy — high x-height, short descenders, and a relatively condensed width that packs more words per line.
- Lora's brushed curves and moderate stroke contrast give body text a warmer, more contemporary texture than Times's crisper Plantin-derived forms.
- Lora ships as a variable font with a weight axis from Regular to Bold plus matching italics, all under the SIL Open Font License for free use anywhere, including the web.
- Times New Roman is a Monotype commercial typeface: it comes bundled with Windows, but web, app, and other licenses are sold separately, with desktop styles starting around $51 each.
- Lora is optimised for screen rendering and works equally well in print, whereas Times New Roman's design predates screens entirely.
Times New Roman
Reach for Times New Roman when a document must look conventional or match an institutional standard — academic papers, legal filings, and anything where the font is already installed and expected.
Lora
Reach for Lora for long-form reading on the web — blogs, editorial sites, and ebooks — where you want a literary serif with no licensing cost and a variable weight range.