Skip to content

Extend vs Font Awesome

Based on 1 and 640 real audits

View Extend details | View Font Awesome details
MetricExtendFont AwesomeWinner
Performance2845Font Awesome
Accessibility7886Font Awesome
Best Practices7788Font Awesome
SEO10091Extend
Security6667Font Awesome
TTFB109ms463msExtend
Composite7474Tie
Performance
Extend
28
Font Awesome
45
Accessibility
Extend
78
Font Awesome
86
Security
Extend
66
Font Awesome
67
SEO
Extend
100
Font Awesome
91
Composite
Extend
74
Font Awesome
74

Font Awesome outperforms Extend in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (74 vs 74). Extend leads in SEO, TTFB.

When to choose Extend

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

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 1 audited Extend sites and 640 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, Extend or Font Awesome?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Font Awesome sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (45 vs 28 on average).
Which has better security, Extend or Font Awesome?
Font Awesome sites score higher on security analysis (67 vs 66 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Extend or Font Awesome?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Font Awesome (86 vs 78). 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, Extend or Font Awesome?
Extend sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (100 vs 91 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), Extend or Font Awesome?
Extend sites show lower Time to First Byte (109 ms vs 463 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 Extend or Font Awesome for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Font Awesome scores higher on overall composite score while Extend 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