Skip to content

Font Awesome vs Typed.js

Based on 639 and 2 real audits

View Font Awesome details | View Typed.js details
MetricFont AwesomeTyped.jsWinner
Performance4648Typed.js
Accessibility8685Font Awesome
Best Practices8898Typed.js
SEO9195Typed.js
Security6770Typed.js
TTFB461ms1018msFont Awesome
Composite7476Typed.js
Performance
Font Awesome
46
Typed.js
48
Accessibility
Font Awesome
86
Typed.js
85
Security
Font Awesome
67
Typed.js
70
SEO
Font Awesome
91
Typed.js
95
Composite
Font Awesome
74
Typed.js
76

Typed.js outperforms Font Awesome in 5 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (76 vs 74). Font Awesome leads in accessibility, TTFB.

When to choose Font Awesome

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

When to choose Typed.js

Choose Typed.js when your primary concern is best practices and SEO. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 639 audited Font Awesome sites and 2 audited Typed.js 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 Typed.js?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Typed.js sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (48 vs 46 on average).
Which has better security, Font Awesome or Typed.js?
Typed.js sites score higher on security analysis (70 vs 67 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Font Awesome or Typed.js?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Font Awesome (86 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 Typed.js?
Typed.js sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (95 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 Typed.js?
Font Awesome sites show lower Time to First Byte (461 ms vs 1018 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 Typed.js for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. Typed.js 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