SU logo review
3.6/5
Logo score
Logo review of

Su

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

Lettermark Brutalist, Bold, Geometric Media
4/5
Legibility
3/5
Originality
5/5
Misread
3/5
Balance
3/5
Scale
Detailed review

Logo performance breakdown

4/5

Legibility

  • The letters 'SU' are highly legible due to their large, bold shapes.
  • Strong color contrast between black text and purple background enhances readability.
  • The jagged, uneven geometric edges could make the letters slightly harder to read at a distance or in small sizes.
3/5

Originality

  • The use of exaggerated, geometric letterforms gives the logo a unique, brutalist style.
  • Color choice and letterform distortion make it more distinctive than a default sans-serif.
  • Lettermark logos built from block letters are common in contemporary branding and lack strong memorability unless further distinguished.
  • No external mark or conceptual twist beyond the letterforms; may be seen as generic in crowded markets.
4/5

Color harmony

  • Simple, two-color approach (purple and black) offers strong contrast and instantly catches the eye.
  • Color choice is consistent and non-distracting, aiding brand recognition.
  • Heavy black on saturated purple can appear harsh; alternative tints or shades might yield a more versatile presentation.
RoyalPurple#6E47A3
Black#000000

Estimated colors. Use the original design file for exact values.

Create a full color palette using these colors

Create new palette
3/5

Balance alignment

  • The letters are visually anchored and centered within the purple rounded square background.
  • Both letters share a similar visual weight and appear cohesive as a unit.
  • The internal negative space and jagged geometry of the letters create a somewhat awkward alignment, especially in the 'S'.
  • The verticals of 'S' and 'U' do not align perfectly, making the mark feel slightly off-balance.
Uploaded logoAlignment guide overlay

Inspect spacing with the guide. Optical balance may differ from geometric centering.

3/5

Scalability

  • Simple, bold letterforms should generally reproduce well at larger sizes and on digital displays.
  • Strong contrast likely retains clarity in larger print and digital formats, such as signage or mobile icons.
  • Irregular edges and chunky letterforms may lose definition or become clumsy at very small scales, such as business cards or favicon applications.
  • The boldness and rectangular format limit its flexibility on unconventional surfaces or narrow branding assets.
Uploaded logo at 200 pixels wide
200 × 250 px
Uploaded logo at 100 pixels wide
100 × 125 px
Uploaded logo at 50 pixels wide
50 × 63 px

Compare the detail at different sizes. Labels show the full image dimensions.

5/5

Misinterpretations

  • No explicit or inadvertent misinterpretations are visible in the composition.

Black & white

Does the shape still work without color?

These tests are available only for logos uploaded in vector (SVG) format.

Background contrast

Find the surfaces where your logo stays clear.

These tests are available only for logos uploaded in vector (SVG) format.

Blur & silhouette

A 3px blur softens fine details so you can check whether the overall shape stays recognizable. If key gaps close or elements merge, the logo may rely too heavily on detail.

These tests are available only for logos uploaded in vector (SVG) format.

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
Keep exploring

Discover other logo reviews