Browser Compatibility and Performance Limits on maketext.io

Updated

maketext.io generates styled text as SVG or PNG, and the format you choose determines what can go wrong. SVG output relies on SVG filters, which modern Chrome, Firefox, and Safari should render correctly but older browsers — Internet Explorer 9 is the example the site itself names — may not. SVG rendering can also be more CPU-intensive than raster images, especially with the complex filters the tool uses, so heavy pages or low-powered devices may feel it. If you need broad browser support or predictable performance, download PNG instead.

What the site says about browser support

maketext.io states that every fancy text effect is available in both SVG and PNG. It also warns that, like CSS properties with uneven support, browser implementations of the SVG filters it uses can differ — particularly in old browsers such as IE9.

The site's own guidance:

  • Latest Chrome, Firefox, and Safari should render the SVG filters correctly.
  • Older browsers, including IE9, may not — check before relying on SVG output if you must support them.
  • For a detailed support list, the site points to Can I Use for "SVG filter."

That last point is the practical check: before committing an SVG asset to a page that serves older or unusual browsers, look up SVG filter support on Can I Use and compare it with your audience's browsers.

Why SVG can be slower than PNG

The site explains that rendering SVG can be more CPU-intensive than rendering raster images like PNG or JPG. This is "especially true when using complicated SVG filters, and almost all filters here are complicated."

In practice, that means:

  • An SVG text graphic is re-rendered by the browser rather than displayed as fixed pixels, so the filter work happens on the viewer's device.
  • Pages with several large SVG effect images, or animations that force re-rendering, can become sluggish on weaker hardware.
  • PNG is a flat raster image — once downloaded, it costs the browser almost nothing extra to display.

The page's excerpt also begins to mention the CSS property will-change as a performance consideration, though the text is cut off there. The general idea is standard: hint the browser about elements that will change so it can optimize rendering.

Choosing SVG or PNG with these limits in mind

Your situation Better choice Why
Modern browsers only, need crisp scaling SVG Renders correctly in current Chrome, Firefox, Safari; stays sharp at any size
Must support IE9 or other old browsers PNG SVG filter support is unreliable there
Many graphics on one page, or low-power devices PNG Avoids repeated CPU-intensive SVG filter rendering
Logo or asset that will be resized often SVG Vector output scales without quality loss
Quick share on social media or chat PNG Universally displayable, no filter rendering needed

A reasonable default: design and preview in the tool, download SVG when your audience is on current browsers and you need scalability, and fall back to PNG whenever compatibility or performance is in doubt. If you are unsure, download both — the site offers both formats for every effect.

Practical checks before you publish

  1. Identify your audience's browsers. If analytics show anything older than current Chrome, Firefox, or Safari, treat SVG as risky.
  2. Test the actual file. Open the downloaded SVG in the browsers you support and confirm the effect looks as intended — filter differences can change appearance, not just break it.
  3. Watch page weight and smoothness. If a page with several SVG effects scrolls poorly on a modest device, switch the heaviest ones to PNG.
  4. Use Can I Use for edge cases. The site explicitly recommends it for SVG filter support details.

The core trade-off is simple: SVG gives you scalable, editable-quality vector output that depends on modern browser filter support and costs more rendering effort; PNG gives you a universally displayable, cheap-to-render image that is fixed in resolution. Knowing which constraint matters more for your project is the whole decision.