Skip to content

Backstretch vs Font Awesome

Based on 1 and 550 real audits

View Backstretch details | View Font Awesome details
MetricBackstretchFont AwesomeWinner
Performance8344Backstretch
Accessibility7487Font Awesome
Best Practices10087Backstretch
SEO7391Font Awesome
Security8065Backstretch
TTFB876ms454msFont Awesome
Composite7773Backstretch
Performance
Backstretch
83
Font Awesome
44
Accessibility
Backstretch
74
Font Awesome
87
Security
Backstretch
80
Font Awesome
65
SEO
Backstretch
73
Font Awesome
91
Composite
Backstretch
77
Font Awesome
73

Backstretch outperforms Font Awesome in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (77 vs 73). Font Awesome leads in accessibility, SEO, TTFB.

When to choose Backstretch

Choose Backstretch when your primary concern is performance and security. 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 server response time and SEO. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 1 audited Backstretch sites and 550 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, Backstretch or Font Awesome?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Backstretch sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (83 vs 44 on average).
Which has better security, Backstretch or Font Awesome?
Backstretch sites score higher on security analysis (80 vs 65 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Backstretch or Font Awesome?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Font Awesome (87 vs 74). 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, Backstretch or Font Awesome?
Font Awesome sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (91 vs 73 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), Backstretch or Font Awesome?
Font Awesome sites show lower Time to First Byte (454 ms vs 876 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 Backstretch or Font Awesome for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Backstretch scores higher on overall composite score while Backstretch 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