Skip to content

Font Awesome vs TrafficStars

Based on 638 and 4 real audits

View Font Awesome details | View TrafficStars details
MetricFont AwesomeTrafficStarsWinner
Performance4548TrafficStars
Accessibility8677Font Awesome
Best Practices8886Font Awesome
SEO9176Font Awesome
Security6773TrafficStars
TTFB461ms294msTrafficStars
Composite7477TrafficStars
Performance
Font Awesome
45
TrafficStars
48
Accessibility
Font Awesome
86
TrafficStars
77
Security
Font Awesome
67
TrafficStars
73
SEO
Font Awesome
91
TrafficStars
76
Composite
Font Awesome
74
TrafficStars
77

TrafficStars outperforms Font Awesome in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (77 vs 74). Font Awesome leads in accessibility, best practices, SEO.

When to choose Font Awesome

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

When to choose TrafficStars

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

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 638 audited Font Awesome sites and 4 audited TrafficStars 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 TrafficStars?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, TrafficStars sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (48 vs 45 on average).
Which has better security, Font Awesome or TrafficStars?
TrafficStars sites score higher on security analysis (73 vs 67 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Font Awesome or TrafficStars?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Font Awesome (86 vs 77). 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 TrafficStars?
Font Awesome sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (91 vs 76 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 TrafficStars?
TrafficStars sites show lower Time to First Byte (294 ms vs 461 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 TrafficStars for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. TrafficStars 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