Based on 730 and 2 real audits
| Metric | Font Awesome | Section.io | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 46 | 25 | Font Awesome |
| Accessibility | 87 | 96 | Section.io |
| Best Practices | 89 | 88 | Font Awesome |
| SEO | 91 | 96 | Section.io |
| Security | 68 | 68 | Tie |
| TTFB | 486ms | 411ms | Section.io |
| Composite | 75 | 73 | Font Awesome |
Font Awesome and Section.io are closely matched, each leading in different categories. Font Awesome has a composite score of 75 while Section.io scores 73.
Choose Font Awesome when your primary concern is performance and best practices. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose Section.io when your primary concern is server response time and accessibility. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 730 audited Font Awesome sites and 2 audited Section.io 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.
Send Feedback