Skip to content

Font Awesome vs Gomag

Based on 663 and 1 real audits

View Font Awesome details | View Gomag details
MetricFont AwesomeGomagWinner
Performance4630Font Awesome
Accessibility8690Gomag
Best Practices8892Gomag
SEO91100Gomag
Security6775Gomag
TTFB478ms569msFont Awesome
Composite7479Gomag
Performance
Font Awesome
46
Gomag
30
Accessibility
Font Awesome
86
Gomag
90
Security
Font Awesome
67
Gomag
75
SEO
Font Awesome
91
Gomag
100
Composite
Font Awesome
74
Gomag
79

Gomag outperforms Font Awesome in 5 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (79 vs 74). Font Awesome leads in performance, TTFB.

When to choose Font Awesome

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

When to choose Gomag

Choose Gomag when your primary concern is SEO and security. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 663 audited Font Awesome sites and 1 audited Gomag 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, Font Awesome or Gomag?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Font Awesome sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (46 vs 30 on average).
Which has better security, Font Awesome or Gomag?
Gomag sites score higher on security analysis (75 vs 67 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Font Awesome or Gomag?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Gomag (90 vs 86). 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 Gomag?
Gomag 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), Font Awesome or Gomag?
Font Awesome sites show lower Time to First Byte (478 ms vs 569 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 Gomag for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Font Awesome 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