# State of Unicode math typesetting fonts?

In a 2011 EuroBachoTeX talk, Ulrik Vieth discusses TeX unicode math fonts and their state of completeness.

He lists the following 4 fonts as (more or less) production-ready:

• Cambria Math
• Asana Math (Apostolos Syropoulos)
• XITS Math (Khaled Hosny)
• Latin Modern Virtual (Hans Hagen) [ConTeXt only]

And the following 4 fonts as "under development":

• Neo Euler (Hermann Zapf, Khaled Hosny)
• Lucida Math (Bigelow & Holmes, Khaled Hosny)
• Latin Modern Math (GUST Foundry)
• TeX Gyre Math (GUST Foundry)

As far as I can tell, Neo Euler development looks like it has stalled. The last update to the Neo Euler GitHub repository seems to have been 4 years ago.

Is the future of Neo Euler known? What about the development of the other unicode-math fonts?

• Latin Modern Math is good, I think. Similarly, XITS Math. No idea about the others. – cfr Dec 24 '14 at 23:45
• This question has a more up-to-date community wiki answer here: tex.stackexchange.com/questions/425098/… I’d redirect this as a dupe, but your question was first. – Davislor Sep 5 '18 at 2:11

The Latin Modern Math and TeX Gyre Math support projects are complete. Together, these fonts provide a total of 5 fonts for typesetting mathematics, all produced by the GUST e-foundry. Details can be found here.

That page lists an additional six fonts, produced by other foundries, which support the mathematics opentype extension, including 3 available from CTAN:

• Asana Math;
• Stix Math (v.2 expected 2016-12-31 according to barbara beeton;
• Xits Math (contains a bold version);

and 3 proprietary:

• Cambria Math;
• Lucida Math (contains a demi bold version);
• Minion Math by Johannes Küster (contains a bold version).

GUST also provide this comparison document which covers all of the above fonts except for Minion Math.

That information is dated May 2014. What about new fonts? How can you evaluate their suitability?

• I wrote this answer a while back to explain why a particular font combination did not work with unicode-math. In that answer, I compared that font combination with Latin Modern Math, which provides proper support. You can use my answer to assess the suitability of other fonts for use with unicode-math since I explain, basically, what a font needs in order to support typesetting maths using the interface this package provides. (The answer is: quite a lot.)

# EDIT

Here's a mini-demo of the 5 maths fonts provided by GUST:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{unicode-math}
\NewDocumentCommand \testme { o }{%
\IfValueT{#1}{%
\setmainfont{TeX Gyre #1}%
\setmathfont{TeX Gyre #1 Math}%
TeX Gyre #1 \& TeX Gyre #1 Math:
}%
\begin{align*}
p(D_k/T)  &       = \frac{p(T/D_k) p(D_k)}{p(T)} \\
&       = \frac{p(T/D_k) p(D_k)}{ \sum_{i=1}^n  p(T/D_i) p(D_i)}  & \text{where } \sum_{i=1}^n p(D_i) = 1 \\
\end{align*}%
}
\begin{document}
Latin Modern Roman \& Latin Modern Math:
\testme

\testme[Bonum]

\testme[Pagella]

\testme[Schola]

\testme[Termes]
\end{document}
• That is useful information. I'm still most curious about Neo Euler - which is rather different in appearance from the other fonts. I'm looking for something which works well for on-screen viewing (projected lecture slides), and Neo Euler seems nice, particularly in combination with the Ubuntu font. – emacsomancer Dec 29 '14 at 0:29
• @emacsomancer The last commit is a bit less than a year old. Have you tried contacting the authors? – cfr Dec 29 '14 at 0:40
• @skan Well, I wouldn't use unicode-math. But if you do and you're using Palatino, Pagella is the obvious choice. That's really all there is to it. You won't get a closer match to Palantino than a Palantino clone, unless you have Palantino Maths also, which almost certainly doesn't exist. – cfr Nov 25 '16 at 23:42
• release of stix version 2 is expected approximately december 31 (2016). this version has been tuned for acceptable appearance with text as well as with math. – barbara beeton Nov 26 '16 at 1:11
• @JimHefferon As far as I know, that's it. It is an abandoned project which remains 'for archaeological purposes' according to the description. barbara might know if any later efforts exist. – cfr Nov 26 '16 at 13:53