Skip to content

Font Awesome vs Shareaholic

Based on 559 and 3 real audits

View Font Awesome details | View Shareaholic details
MetricFont AwesomeShareaholicWinner
Performance4442Font Awesome
Accessibility8785Font Awesome
Best Practices8780Font Awesome
SEO9187Font Awesome
Security6561Font Awesome
TTFB456ms550msFont Awesome
Composite7372Font Awesome
Performance
Font Awesome
44
Shareaholic
42
Accessibility
Font Awesome
87
Shareaholic
85
Security
Font Awesome
65
Shareaholic
61
SEO
Font Awesome
91
Shareaholic
87
Composite
Font Awesome
73
Shareaholic
72

Font Awesome outperforms Shareaholic in 7 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (73 vs 72). Shareaholic leads in no categories.

When to choose Font Awesome

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

When to choose Shareaholic

Shareaholic doesn't clearly lead Font Awesome in any category on the sampled sites — pick it based on developer experience, ecosystem, or existing team skills rather than the audit scores.

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 559 audited Font Awesome sites and 3 audited Shareaholic 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 Shareaholic?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Font Awesome sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (44 vs 42 on average).
Which has better security, Font Awesome or Shareaholic?
Font Awesome sites score higher on security analysis (65 vs 61 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Font Awesome or Shareaholic?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Font Awesome (87 vs 85). 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 Shareaholic?
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 Shareaholic?
Font Awesome sites show lower Time to First Byte (456 ms vs 550 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 Shareaholic for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Font Awesome 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