Skip to content

Font Awesome vs Raphael

Based on 559 and 5 real audits

View Font Awesome details | View Raphael details
MetricFont AwesomeRaphaelWinner
Performance4466Raphael
Accessibility8768Font Awesome
Best Practices8794Raphael
SEO9184Font Awesome
Security6570Raphael
TTFB456ms467msFont Awesome
Composite7375Raphael
Performance
Font Awesome
44
Raphael
66
Accessibility
Font Awesome
87
Raphael
68
Security
Font Awesome
65
Raphael
70
SEO
Font Awesome
91
Raphael
84
Composite
Font Awesome
73
Raphael
75

Raphael outperforms Font Awesome in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (75 vs 73). Font Awesome leads in accessibility, SEO, TTFB.

When to choose Font Awesome

Choose Font Awesome when your primary concern is accessibility and server response time. 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 559 audited Font Awesome sites and 5 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 →

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 Raphael?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Raphael sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (66 vs 44 on average).
Which has better security, Font Awesome or Raphael?
Raphael sites score higher on security analysis (70 vs 65 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Font Awesome or Raphael?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Font Awesome (87 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 84 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 (456 ms vs 467 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