Skip to content

Ant Design vs Font Awesome

Based on 4 and 515 real audits

View Ant Design details | View Font Awesome details
MetricAnt DesignFont AwesomeWinner
Performance3343Font Awesome
Accessibility8187Font Awesome
Best Practices8287Font Awesome
SEO8691Font Awesome
Security6164Font Awesome
TTFB357ms439msAnt Design
Composite6873Font Awesome
Performance
Ant Design
33
Font Awesome
43
Accessibility
Ant Design
81
Font Awesome
87
Security
Ant Design
61
Font Awesome
64
SEO
Ant Design
86
Font Awesome
91
Composite
Ant Design
68
Font Awesome
73

Font Awesome outperforms Ant Design in 6 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (73 vs 68). Ant Design leads in TTFB.

When to choose Ant Design

Choose Ant Design when your primary concern is server response time. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

When to choose Font Awesome

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

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 4 audited Ant Design sites and 515 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.

FAQ

Which is faster, Ant Design or Font Awesome?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Font Awesome sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (43 vs 33 on average).
Which has better security, Ant Design or Font Awesome?
Font Awesome sites score higher on security analysis (64 vs 61 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Ant Design or Font Awesome?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Font Awesome (87 vs 81). 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, Ant Design or Font Awesome?
Font Awesome sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (91 vs 86 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), Ant Design or Font Awesome?
Ant Design sites show lower Time to First Byte (357 ms vs 439 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 Ant Design or Font Awesome for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Font Awesome scores higher on overall composite score while Ant Design 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