Skip to content

Font Awesome vs Microsoft

Based on 559 and 2421 real audits

View Font Awesome details | View Microsoft details
MetricFont AwesomeMicrosoftWinner
Performance4439Font Awesome
Accessibility8789Microsoft
Best Practices8786Font Awesome
SEO9189Font Awesome
Security6566Microsoft
TTFB456ms329msMicrosoft
Composite7372Font Awesome
Performance
Font Awesome
44
Microsoft
39
Accessibility
Font Awesome
87
Microsoft
89
Security
Font Awesome
65
Microsoft
66
SEO
Font Awesome
91
Microsoft
89
Composite
Font Awesome
73
Microsoft
72

Font Awesome outperforms Microsoft in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (73 vs 72). Microsoft leads in accessibility, security, TTFB.

When to choose Font Awesome

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

When to choose Microsoft

Choose Microsoft when your primary concern is server response time and accessibility. 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 2421 audited Microsoft 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 Microsoft?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Font Awesome sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (44 vs 39 on average).
Which has better security, Font Awesome or Microsoft?
Microsoft sites score higher on security analysis (66 vs 65 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Font Awesome or Microsoft?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Microsoft (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 Microsoft?
Font Awesome sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (91 vs 89 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 Microsoft?
Microsoft sites show lower Time to First Byte (329 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 Microsoft 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