Skip to content

Font Awesome vs Google Tag Manager

Based on 730 and 2933 real audits

View Font Awesome details | View Google Tag Manager details
MetricFont AwesomeGoogle Tag ManagerWinner
Performance4641Font Awesome
Accessibility8788Google Tag Manager
Best Practices8987Font Awesome
SEO9192Google Tag Manager
Security6867Font Awesome
TTFB486ms421msGoogle Tag Manager
Composite7574Font Awesome
Performance
Font Awesome
46
Google Tag Manager
41
Accessibility
Font Awesome
87
Google Tag Manager
88
Security
Font Awesome
68
Google Tag Manager
67
SEO
Font Awesome
91
Google Tag Manager
92
Composite
Font Awesome
75
Google Tag Manager
74

Font Awesome outperforms Google Tag Manager in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (75 vs 74). Google Tag Manager leads in accessibility, SEO, TTFB.

When to choose Font Awesome

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

When to choose Google Tag Manager

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

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 730 audited Font Awesome sites and 2933 audited Google Tag Manager 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 Tag Manager?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Font Awesome sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (46 vs 41 on average).
Which has better security, Font Awesome or Google Tag Manager?
Font Awesome sites score higher on security analysis (68 vs 67 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Font Awesome or Google Tag Manager?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Google Tag Manager (88 vs 87). 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 Tag Manager?
Google Tag Manager sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (92 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 Tag Manager?
Google Tag Manager sites show lower Time to First Byte (421 ms vs 486 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 Tag Manager 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