Skip to content

ExtJS vs Font Awesome

Based on 2 and 639 real audits

View ExtJS details | View Font Awesome details
MetricExtJSFont AwesomeWinner
Performance4246Font Awesome
Accessibility6986Font Awesome
Best Practices8688Font Awesome
SEO9591ExtJS
Security7267ExtJS
TTFB103ms461msExtJS
Composite7774ExtJS
Performance
ExtJS
42
Font Awesome
46
Accessibility
ExtJS
69
Font Awesome
86
Security
ExtJS
72
Font Awesome
67
SEO
ExtJS
95
Font Awesome
91
Composite
ExtJS
77
Font Awesome
74

ExtJS outperforms Font Awesome in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (77 vs 74). Font Awesome leads in performance, accessibility, best practices.

When to choose ExtJS

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

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 2 audited ExtJS sites and 639 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, ExtJS or Font Awesome?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Font Awesome sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (46 vs 42 on average).
Which has better security, ExtJS or Font Awesome?
ExtJS sites score higher on security analysis (72 vs 67 on average).
Which has better accessibility, ExtJS or Font Awesome?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Font Awesome (86 vs 69). 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, ExtJS or Font Awesome?
ExtJS sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (95 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), ExtJS or Font Awesome?
ExtJS sites show lower Time to First Byte (103 ms vs 461 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 ExtJS or Font Awesome for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Font Awesome scores higher on overall composite score while ExtJS 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