Skip to content

Font Awesome vs jQuery

Based on 612 and 1992 real audits

View Font Awesome details | View jQuery details
MetricFont AwesomejQueryWinner
Performance4545Tie
Accessibility8786Font Awesome
Best Practices8887Font Awesome
SEO9190Font Awesome
Security6665Font Awesome
TTFB453ms460msFont Awesome
Composite7474Tie
Performance
Font Awesome
45
jQuery
45
Accessibility
Font Awesome
87
jQuery
86
Security
Font Awesome
66
jQuery
65
SEO
Font Awesome
91
jQuery
90
Composite
Font Awesome
74
jQuery
74

Font Awesome outperforms jQuery in 5 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (74 vs 74). jQuery leads in no categories.

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 jQuery

jQuery 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 612 audited Font Awesome sites and 1992 audited jQuery 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 jQuery?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Font Awesome sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (45 vs 45 on average).
Which has better security, Font Awesome or jQuery?
Font Awesome sites score higher on security analysis (66 vs 65 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Font Awesome or jQuery?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Font Awesome (87 vs 86). 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 jQuery?
Font Awesome sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (91 vs 90 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 jQuery?
Font Awesome sites show lower Time to First Byte (453 ms vs 460 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 jQuery 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