Based on 1 and 575 real audits
| Metric | E-monsite | Font Awesome | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 66 | 44 | E-monsite |
| Accessibility | 91 | 87 | E-monsite |
| Best Practices | 100 | 87 | E-monsite |
| SEO | 100 | 91 | E-monsite |
| Security | 65 | 65 | Tie |
| TTFB | 201ms | 453ms | E-monsite |
| Composite | 77 | 73 | E-monsite |
E-monsite outperforms Font Awesome in 6 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (77 vs 73). Font Awesome leads in no categories.
Choose E-monsite when your primary concern is server response time and performance. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Font Awesome doesn't clearly lead E-monsite in any category on the sampled sites — pick it based on developer experience, ecosystem, or existing team skills rather than the audit scores.
Scores are medians across 1 audited E-monsite sites and 575 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