Skip to content

Font Awesome vs jQuery

Based on 559 and 1857 real audits

View Font Awesome details | View jQuery details
MetricFont AwesomejQueryWinner
Performance4445jQuery
Accessibility8786Font Awesome
Best Practices8787Tie
SEO9190Font Awesome
Security6565Tie
TTFB456ms438msjQuery
Composite7373Tie
Performance
Font Awesome
44
jQuery
45
Accessibility
Font Awesome
87
jQuery
86
Security
Font Awesome
65
jQuery
65
SEO
Font Awesome
91
jQuery
90
Composite
Font Awesome
73
jQuery
73

Font Awesome and jQuery are closely matched, each leading in different categories. Font Awesome has a composite score of 73 while jQuery scores 73.

When to choose Font Awesome

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

When to choose jQuery

Choose jQuery 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 559 audited Font Awesome sites and 1857 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, jQuery sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (45 vs 44 on average).
Which has better security, Font Awesome or jQuery?
Font Awesome sites score higher on security analysis (65 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?
jQuery sites show lower Time to First Byte (438 ms vs 456 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. jQuery 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