Skip to content

Font Awesome vs Raphael

Based on 730 and 12 real audits

View Font Awesome details | View Raphael details
MetricFont AwesomeRaphaelWinner
Performance4660Raphael
Accessibility8772Font Awesome
Best Practices8995Raphael
SEO9188Font Awesome
Security6873Raphael
TTFB486ms545msFont Awesome
Composite7576Raphael
Performance
Font Awesome
46
Raphael
60
Accessibility
Font Awesome
87
Raphael
72
Security
Font Awesome
68
Raphael
73
SEO
Font Awesome
91
Raphael
88
Composite
Font Awesome
75
Raphael
76

Raphael outperforms Font Awesome in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (76 vs 75). 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 730 audited Font Awesome sites and 12 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 (60 vs 46 on average).
Which has better security, Font Awesome or Raphael?
Raphael sites score higher on security analysis (73 vs 68 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Font Awesome or Raphael?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Font Awesome (87 vs 72). 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 88 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 (486 ms vs 545 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