Skip to content

Font Awesome vs HSTS

Based on 736 and 3304 real audits

View Font Awesome details | View HSTS details
MetricFont AwesomeHSTSWinner
Performance4653HSTS
Accessibility8790HSTS
Best Practices8989Tie
SEO9192HSTS
Security6873HSTS
TTFB485ms403msHSTS
Composite7578HSTS
Performance
Font Awesome
46
HSTS
53
Accessibility
Font Awesome
87
HSTS
90
Security
Font Awesome
68
HSTS
73
SEO
Font Awesome
91
HSTS
92
Composite
Font Awesome
75
HSTS
78

HSTS outperforms Font Awesome in 6 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (78 vs 75). 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 736 audited Font Awesome sites and 3304 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 (53 vs 46 on average).
Which has better security, Font Awesome or HSTS?
HSTS sites score higher on security analysis (73 vs 68 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Font Awesome or HSTS?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor HSTS (90 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?
HSTS 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 HSTS?
HSTS sites show lower Time to First Byte (403 ms vs 485 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