Skip to content

Font Awesome vs script.aculo.us

Based on 559 and 4 real audits

View Font Awesome details | View script.aculo.us details
MetricFont Awesomescript.aculo.usWinner
Performance4457script.aculo.us
Accessibility8778Font Awesome
Best Practices8783Font Awesome
SEO9187Font Awesome
Security6565Tie
TTFB456ms458msFont Awesome
Composite7372Font Awesome
Performance
Font Awesome
44
script.aculo.us
57
Accessibility
Font Awesome
87
script.aculo.us
78
Security
Font Awesome
65
script.aculo.us
65
SEO
Font Awesome
91
script.aculo.us
87
Composite
Font Awesome
73
script.aculo.us
72

Font Awesome outperforms script.aculo.us in 5 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (73 vs 72). script.aculo.us leads in performance.

When to choose Font Awesome

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

When to choose script.aculo.us

Choose script.aculo.us when your primary concern is performance. 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 script.aculo.us 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 script.aculo.us?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, script.aculo.us sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (57 vs 44 on average).
Which has better security, Font Awesome or script.aculo.us?
Font Awesome sites score higher on security analysis (65 vs 65 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Font Awesome or script.aculo.us?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Font Awesome (87 vs 78). 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 script.aculo.us?
Font Awesome sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (91 vs 87 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 script.aculo.us?
Font Awesome sites show lower Time to First Byte (456 ms vs 458 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 script.aculo.us for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. script.aculo.us 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