Skip to content

Font Awesome vs Ortto

Based on 575 and 1 real audits

View Font Awesome details | View Ortto details
MetricFont AwesomeOrttoWinner
Performance4435Font Awesome
Accessibility8799Ortto
Best Practices8777Font Awesome
SEO91100Ortto
Security6565Tie
TTFB453ms104msOrtto
Composite7375Ortto
Performance
Font Awesome
44
Ortto
35
Accessibility
Font Awesome
87
Ortto
99
Security
Font Awesome
65
Ortto
65
SEO
Font Awesome
91
Ortto
100
Composite
Font Awesome
73
Ortto
75

Ortto outperforms Font Awesome in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (75 vs 73). Font Awesome leads in performance, best practices.

When to choose Font Awesome

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

When to choose Ortto

Choose Ortto 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 575 audited Font Awesome sites and 1 audited Ortto 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 Ortto?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Font Awesome sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (44 vs 35 on average).
Which has better security, Font Awesome or Ortto?
Font Awesome sites score higher on security analysis (65 vs 65 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Font Awesome or Ortto?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Ortto (99 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 Ortto?
Ortto 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 Ortto?
Ortto sites show lower Time to First Byte (104 ms vs 453 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 Ortto 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