Skip to content

Font Awesome vs ShareThis

Based on 559 and 17 real audits

View Font Awesome details | View ShareThis details
MetricFont AwesomeShareThisWinner
Performance4434Font Awesome
Accessibility8788ShareThis
Best Practices8784Font Awesome
SEO9192ShareThis
Security6565Tie
TTFB456ms574msFont Awesome
Composite7372Font Awesome
Performance
Font Awesome
44
ShareThis
34
Accessibility
Font Awesome
87
ShareThis
88
Security
Font Awesome
65
ShareThis
65
SEO
Font Awesome
91
ShareThis
92
Composite
Font Awesome
73
ShareThis
72

Font Awesome outperforms ShareThis in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (73 vs 72). ShareThis leads in accessibility, SEO.

When to choose Font Awesome

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

When to choose ShareThis

Choose ShareThis when your primary concern is accessibility and SEO. 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 17 audited ShareThis 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 ShareThis?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Font Awesome sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (44 vs 34 on average).
Which has better security, Font Awesome or ShareThis?
Font Awesome sites score higher on security analysis (65 vs 65 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Font Awesome or ShareThis?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor ShareThis (88 vs 87). 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 ShareThis?
ShareThis sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (92 vs 91 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 ShareThis?
Font Awesome sites show lower Time to First Byte (456 ms vs 574 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 ShareThis 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