Skip to content

Font Awesome vs Raphael

Based on 624 and 10 real audits

View Font Awesome details | View Raphael details
MetricFont AwesomeRaphaelWinner
Performance4565Raphael
Accessibility8668Font Awesome
Best Practices8894Raphael
SEO9189Font Awesome
Security6672Raphael
TTFB453ms532msFont Awesome
Composite7476Raphael
Performance
Font Awesome
45
Raphael
65
Accessibility
Font Awesome
86
Raphael
68
Security
Font Awesome
66
Raphael
72
SEO
Font Awesome
91
Raphael
89
Composite
Font Awesome
74
Raphael
76

Raphael outperforms Font Awesome in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (76 vs 74). Font Awesome leads in accessibility, SEO, TTFB.

When to choose Font Awesome

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

When to choose Raphael

Choose Raphael when your primary concern is performance 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 624 audited Font Awesome sites and 10 audited Raphael 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 Raphael?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Raphael sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (65 vs 45 on average).
Which has better security, Font Awesome or Raphael?
Raphael sites score higher on security analysis (72 vs 66 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Font Awesome or Raphael?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Font Awesome (86 vs 68). 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 Raphael?
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 Raphael?
Font Awesome sites show lower Time to First Byte (453 ms vs 532 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 Raphael for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Raphael 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