Skip to content

Font Awesome vs OpenCms

Based on 575 and 1 real audits

View Font Awesome details | View OpenCms details
MetricFont AwesomeOpenCmsWinner
Performance4444Tie
Accessibility8789OpenCms
Best Practices8796OpenCms
SEO91100OpenCms
Security6557Font Awesome
TTFB453ms954msFont Awesome
Composite7368Font Awesome
Performance
Font Awesome
44
OpenCms
44
Accessibility
Font Awesome
87
OpenCms
89
Security
Font Awesome
65
OpenCms
57
SEO
Font Awesome
91
OpenCms
100
Composite
Font Awesome
73
OpenCms
68

Font Awesome and OpenCms are closely matched, each leading in different categories. Font Awesome has a composite score of 73 while OpenCms scores 68.

When to choose Font Awesome

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

When to choose OpenCms

Choose OpenCms when your primary concern is best practices and SEO. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 575 audited Font Awesome sites and 1 audited OpenCms 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 OpenCms?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Font Awesome sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (44 vs 44 on average).
Which has better security, Font Awesome or OpenCms?
Font Awesome sites score higher on security analysis (65 vs 57 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Font Awesome or OpenCms?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor OpenCms (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 OpenCms?
OpenCms sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (100 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 OpenCms?
Font Awesome sites show lower Time to First Byte (453 ms vs 954 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 OpenCms 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