Skip to content

Animate.css vs Font Awesome

Based on 43 and 588 real audits

View Animate.css details | View Font Awesome details
MetricAnimate.cssFont AwesomeWinner
Performance4445Font Awesome
Accessibility8387Font Awesome
Best Practices8788Font Awesome
SEO9091Font Awesome
Security6566Font Awesome
TTFB468ms449msFont Awesome
Composite7474Tie
Performance
Animate.css
44
Font Awesome
45
Accessibility
Animate.css
83
Font Awesome
87
Security
Animate.css
65
Font Awesome
66
SEO
Animate.css
90
Font Awesome
91
Composite
Animate.css
74
Font Awesome
74

Font Awesome outperforms Animate.css in 6 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (74 vs 74). Animate.css leads in no categories.

When to choose Animate.css

Animate.css 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.

When to choose Font Awesome

Choose Font Awesome when your primary concern is server response time and accessibility. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 43 audited Animate.css sites and 588 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 →

FAQ

Which is faster, Animate.css or Font Awesome?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Font Awesome sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (45 vs 44 on average).
Which has better security, Animate.css or Font Awesome?
Font Awesome sites score higher on security analysis (66 vs 65 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Animate.css or Font Awesome?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Font Awesome (87 vs 83). Both technologies can be made fully accessible with care — the difference reflects common patterns in the sampled sites, not inherent platform limits.
Which is better for SEO, Animate.css or Font Awesome?
Font Awesome sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (91 vs 90 on average), which cover meta tags, crawlability, mobile friendliness, and structured data. Content strategy and backlinks still matter more than platform choice for ranking.
Which has faster server response (TTFB), Animate.css or Font Awesome?
Font Awesome sites show lower Time to First Byte (449 ms vs 468 ms on average). TTFB depends heavily on hosting and CDN setup rather than the technology itself, but the sampled sites suggest a meaningful difference in common deployment patterns.
Should I choose Animate.css or Font Awesome for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Font Awesome scores higher on overall composite score while Animate.css may excel in metrics you care about most. Run a free BeaverCheck audit on a real site using each to compare the metrics relevant to your use case.
Audit your own site

Send Feedback