Skip to content

Font Awesome vs HSTS

Based on 556 and 2487 real audits

View Font Awesome details | View HSTS details
MetricFont AwesomeHSTSWinner
Performance4448HSTS
Accessibility8789HSTS
Best Practices8788HSTS
SEO9191Tie
Security6569HSTS
TTFB455ms354msHSTS
Composite7375HSTS
Performance
Font Awesome
44
HSTS
48
Accessibility
Font Awesome
87
HSTS
89
Security
Font Awesome
65
HSTS
69
SEO
Font Awesome
91
HSTS
91
Composite
Font Awesome
73
HSTS
75

HSTS outperforms Font Awesome in 6 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (75 vs 73). Font Awesome leads in no categories.

When to choose Font Awesome

Font Awesome doesn't clearly lead HSTS in any category on the sampled sites — pick it based on developer experience, ecosystem, or existing team skills rather than the audit scores.

When to choose HSTS

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

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 556 audited Font Awesome sites and 2487 audited HSTS 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 HSTS?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, HSTS sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (48 vs 44 on average).
Which has better security, Font Awesome or HSTS?
HSTS sites score higher on security analysis (69 vs 65 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Font Awesome or HSTS?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor HSTS (89 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 HSTS?
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 HSTS?
HSTS sites show lower Time to First Byte (354 ms vs 455 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 HSTS for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. HSTS 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