Skip to content

Font Awesome vs Google Hosted Libraries

Based on 559 and 12 real audits

View Font Awesome details | View Google Hosted Libraries details
MetricFont AwesomeGoogle Hosted LibrariesWinner
Performance4451Google Hosted Libraries
Accessibility8779Font Awesome
Best Practices8791Google Hosted Libraries
SEO9191Tie
Security6562Font Awesome
TTFB456ms465msFont Awesome
Composite7374Google Hosted Libraries
Performance
Font Awesome
44
Google Hosted Libraries
51
Accessibility
Font Awesome
87
Google Hosted Libraries
79
Security
Font Awesome
65
Google Hosted Libraries
62
SEO
Font Awesome
91
Google Hosted Libraries
91
Composite
Font Awesome
73
Google Hosted Libraries
74

Font Awesome and Google Hosted Libraries are closely matched, each leading in different categories. Font Awesome has a composite score of 73 while Google Hosted Libraries scores 74.

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 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 559 audited Font Awesome sites and 12 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 (51 vs 44 on average).
Which has better security, Font Awesome or Google Hosted Libraries?
Font Awesome sites score higher on security analysis (65 vs 62 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 79). 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?
Font Awesome sites show lower Time to First Byte (456 ms vs 465 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