Skip to content

Font Awesome vs Go

Based on 811 and 22 real audits

View Font Awesome details | View Go details
MetricFont AwesomeGoWinner
Performance4761Go
Accessibility8783Font Awesome
Best Practices8990Go
SEO9190Font Awesome
Security6969Tie
TTFB537ms846msFont Awesome
Composite7674Font Awesome
Performance
Font Awesome
47
Go
61
Accessibility
Font Awesome
87
Go
83
Security
Font Awesome
69
Go
69
SEO
Font Awesome
91
Go
90
Composite
Font Awesome
76
Go
74

Font Awesome outperforms Go in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (76 vs 74). Go leads in performance, best practices.

When to choose Font Awesome

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

When to choose Go

Choose Go 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 811 audited Font Awesome sites and 22 audited Go 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 →

FAQ

Which is faster, Font Awesome or Go?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Go sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (61 vs 47 on average).
Which has better security, Font Awesome or Go?
Font Awesome sites score higher on security analysis (69 vs 69 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Font Awesome or Go?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Font Awesome (87 vs 83). 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, Font Awesome or Go?
Font Awesome sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (91 vs 90 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), Font Awesome or Go?
Font Awesome sites show lower Time to First Byte (537 ms vs 846 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 Font Awesome or Go for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Go scores higher on overall composite score while Font Awesome 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