Based on 3 and 624 real audits
| Metric | amCharts | Font Awesome | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 37 | 45 | Font Awesome |
| Accessibility | 78 | 86 | Font Awesome |
| Best Practices | 88 | 88 | Tie |
| SEO | 84 | 91 | Font Awesome |
| Security | 62 | 66 | Font Awesome |
| TTFB | 534ms | 453ms | Font Awesome |
| Composite | 71 | 74 | Font Awesome |
Font Awesome outperforms amCharts in 6 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (74 vs 71). amCharts leads in no categories.
amCharts doesn't clearly lead Font Awesome in any category on the sampled sites — pick it based on developer experience, ecosystem, or existing team skills rather than the audit scores.
Choose Font Awesome when your primary concern is server response time and performance. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 3 audited amCharts sites and 624 audited Font Awesome sites in the BeaverCheck database. Every audit runs the same 100+ checks — Lighthouse performance, security headers, accessibility, SEO, server response time — against a real URL. No vendor input, no sponsorship, no affiliate links. Read the full methodology →
Small sample: one or both technologies have fewer than 10 audited sites. Treat these numbers as directional — medians stabilize around 20–30 audits per side.
Send Feedback