Skip to content

Font Awesome vs Google Hosted Libraries

Based on 612 and 13 real audits

View Font Awesome details | View Google Hosted Libraries details
MetricFont AwesomeGoogle Hosted LibrariesWinner
Performance4552Google Hosted Libraries
Accessibility8778Font Awesome
Best Practices8891Google Hosted Libraries
SEO9191Tie
Security6663Font Awesome
TTFB453ms450msGoogle Hosted Libraries
Composite7474Tie
Performance
Font Awesome
45
Google Hosted Libraries
52
Accessibility
Font Awesome
87
Google Hosted Libraries
78
Security
Font Awesome
66
Google Hosted Libraries
63
SEO
Font Awesome
91
Google Hosted Libraries
91
Composite
Font Awesome
74
Google Hosted Libraries
74

Google Hosted Libraries outperforms Font Awesome in 3 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (74 vs 74). Font Awesome leads in accessibility, security.

When to choose Font Awesome

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

When to choose Google Hosted Libraries

Choose Google Hosted Libraries 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 612 audited Font Awesome sites and 13 audited Google Hosted Libraries 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 Google Hosted Libraries?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Google Hosted Libraries sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (52 vs 45 on average).
Which has better security, Font Awesome or Google Hosted Libraries?
Font Awesome sites score higher on security analysis (66 vs 63 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Font Awesome or Google Hosted Libraries?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Font Awesome (87 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, Font Awesome or Google Hosted Libraries?
Font Awesome sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (91 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 Google Hosted Libraries?
Google Hosted Libraries sites show lower Time to First Byte (450 ms vs 453 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 Google Hosted Libraries for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Google Hosted Libraries 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