Skip to content

Font Awesome vs W3 Total Cache

Based on 575 and 1 real audits

View Font Awesome details | View W3 Total Cache details
MetricFont AwesomeW3 Total CacheWinner
Performance4474W3 Total Cache
Accessibility8787Tie
Best Practices87100W3 Total Cache
SEO9192W3 Total Cache
Security6560Font Awesome
TTFB453ms1023msFont Awesome
Composite7375W3 Total Cache
Performance
Font Awesome
44
W3 Total Cache
74
Accessibility
Font Awesome
87
W3 Total Cache
87
Security
Font Awesome
65
W3 Total Cache
60
SEO
Font Awesome
91
W3 Total Cache
92
Composite
Font Awesome
73
W3 Total Cache
75

W3 Total Cache outperforms Font Awesome in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (75 vs 73). Font Awesome leads in security, TTFB.

When to choose Font Awesome

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

When to choose W3 Total Cache

Choose W3 Total Cache when your primary concern is performance and best practices. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.

How this comparison was built

Scores are medians across 575 audited Font Awesome sites and 1 audited W3 Total Cache 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 W3 Total Cache?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, W3 Total Cache sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (74 vs 44 on average).
Which has better security, Font Awesome or W3 Total Cache?
Font Awesome sites score higher on security analysis (65 vs 60 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Font Awesome or W3 Total Cache?
Accessibility scores measured by Lighthouse WCAG 2.1 checks favor Font Awesome (87 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 W3 Total Cache?
W3 Total Cache 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 W3 Total Cache?
Font Awesome sites show lower Time to First Byte (453 ms vs 1023 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 W3 Total Cache for my website?
Both platforms have trade-offs. W3 Total Cache 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