nutriima logo review
3.8 / 5
Logo score
Logo review of

Nutriima

Review the detailed scores below to see what is working and what should be refined first.

Objective AI feedback. Your creative decision.

Combination Mark Minimalist, Script Health
4/5
Legibility
3/5
Originality
5/5
Misread
3/5
Balance
3/5
Scale
Detailed review

Logo performance breakdown

4/5

Legibility

Checkmark icon Script font is elegant and generally clear.
Checkmark icon Text contrasts well against the background.

Warning icon The connected script and unique 't' with a long ascender can potentially cause minor readability issues, especially at small sizes.

3/5

Originality

Checkmark icon Combining a woman’s profile and healthy food reference is tailored for a nutrition/health brand.
Checkmark icon Custom touch with the leafy map pin.

Warning icon Uses common nutritional/health symbolism (profile, leaf, map pin, utensils), which diminishes uniqueness.
Warning icon No particularly clever use of negative space or highly memorable visual twist.

5/5

Color harmony

Checkmark icon Limited, well-matched greens reinforce the healthy theme.
Checkmark icon Strong contrast against white background.

Deep Green
#284D32

White
#FFFFFF

3/5

Balance alignment

Checkmark icon Symbol and text have a conceptual link.

Warning icon The left-heavy woman’s silhouette dominates visually, creating imbalance, especially as the additional icon on the right is smaller and lighter.
Warning icon The spacing between the logomark, the script text, and the map pin is inconsistent, making the composition feel loosely assembled.

logo 200x250 pixels scalability test alignment grid overlay
3/5

Scalability

Checkmark icon Simple icon silhouette and limited color palette enhance adaptability on flat backgrounds.
Checkmark icon Could work on business cards, digital headers, and social media displays.

Warning icon The intricate fork/spoon detail in the pin may be lost on very small prints (like favicons or embroidery).
Warning icon The script font may lose legibility at smaller sizes.

logo 200x250 pixels scalability test

200x250 px

logo 100x125 pixels scalability test

100×125 px

logo 50x62 pixels scalability test

50×62 px

5/5

Misinterpretations

Checkmark icon No inappropriate or ambiguous visual elements detected.

3 / 5

Symbol & text fit

Checkmark icon Both logomark and wordmark share a clean, smooth line style.

Warning icon The weight of the logomark visually outweighs the script wordmark, making the left side feel much heavier.
Warning icon Styles between the soft profile and the outlined utensil map pin do not fully harmonize.

Try your own review

Wondering how your logo performs?

Get a clear logo score, key risks, and priority fix ideas before your client or audience sees it.

Review my logo