Skip to content

Font Awesome vs prettyPhoto

Based on 559 and 4 real audits

View Font Awesome details | View prettyPhoto details
MetricFont AwesomeprettyPhotoWinner
Performance4440Font Awesome
Accessibility8787Tie
Best Practices8791prettyPhoto
SEO9190Font Awesome
Security6564Font Awesome
TTFB456ms559msFont Awesome
Composite7373Tie
Performance
Font Awesome
44
prettyPhoto
40
Accessibility
Font Awesome
87
prettyPhoto
87
Security
Font Awesome
65
prettyPhoto
64
SEO
Font Awesome
91
prettyPhoto
90
Composite
Font Awesome
73
prettyPhoto
73

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

When to choose Font Awesome

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

When to choose prettyPhoto

Choose prettyPhoto when your primary concern is best practices. 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 4 audited prettyPhoto 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 prettyPhoto?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Font Awesome sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (44 vs 40 on average).
Which has better security, Font Awesome or prettyPhoto?
Font Awesome sites score higher on security analysis (65 vs 64 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Font Awesome or prettyPhoto?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Font Awesome (87 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 prettyPhoto?
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 prettyPhoto?
Font Awesome sites show lower Time to First Byte (456 ms vs 559 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 prettyPhoto 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