Skip to content

Font Awesome vs Inspectlet

Based on 575 and 1 real audits

View Font Awesome details | View Inspectlet details
MetricFont AwesomeInspectletWinner
Performance4430Font Awesome
Accessibility8787Tie
Best Practices8777Font Awesome
SEO9185Font Awesome
Security6558Font Awesome
TTFB453ms657msFont Awesome
Composite7370Font Awesome
Performance
Font Awesome
44
Inspectlet
30
Accessibility
Font Awesome
87
Inspectlet
87
Security
Font Awesome
65
Inspectlet
58
SEO
Font Awesome
91
Inspectlet
85
Composite
Font Awesome
73
Inspectlet
70

Font Awesome outperforms Inspectlet in 6 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (73 vs 70). Inspectlet leads in no categories.

When to choose Font Awesome

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

When to choose Inspectlet

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

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 575 audited Font Awesome sites and 1 audited Inspectlet 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 →

Small sample: one or both technologies have fewer than 10 audited sites. Treat these numbers as directional — medians stabilize around 20–30 audits per side.

FAQ

Which is faster, Font Awesome or Inspectlet?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Font Awesome sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (44 vs 30 on average).
Which has better security, Font Awesome or Inspectlet?
Font Awesome sites score higher on security analysis (65 vs 58 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Font Awesome or Inspectlet?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Font Awesome (87 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 Inspectlet?
Font Awesome sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (91 vs 85 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 Inspectlet?
Font Awesome sites show lower Time to First Byte (453 ms vs 657 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 Inspectlet 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