Skip to content

Font Awesome vs ProfilePress

Based on 559 and 4 real audits

View Font Awesome details | View ProfilePress details
MetricFont AwesomeProfilePressWinner
Performance4446ProfilePress
Accessibility8789ProfilePress
Best Practices8790ProfilePress
SEO9190Font Awesome
Security6563Font Awesome
TTFB456ms346msProfilePress
Composite7375ProfilePress
Performance
Font Awesome
44
ProfilePress
46
Accessibility
Font Awesome
87
ProfilePress
89
Security
Font Awesome
65
ProfilePress
63
SEO
Font Awesome
91
ProfilePress
90
Composite
Font Awesome
73
ProfilePress
75

ProfilePress outperforms Font Awesome in 5 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (75 vs 73). Font Awesome leads in SEO, security.

When to choose Font Awesome

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

When to choose ProfilePress

Choose ProfilePress when your primary concern is server response time and 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 ProfilePress 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 ProfilePress?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, ProfilePress sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (46 vs 44 on average).
Which has better security, Font Awesome or ProfilePress?
Font Awesome sites score higher on security analysis (65 vs 63 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Font Awesome or ProfilePress?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor ProfilePress (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 ProfilePress?
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 ProfilePress?
ProfilePress sites show lower Time to First Byte (346 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 ProfilePress for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. ProfilePress 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