Skip to content

Font Awesome vs WP Fastest Cache

Based on 575 and 1 real audits

View Font Awesome details | View WP Fastest Cache details
MetricFont AwesomeWP Fastest CacheWinner
Performance4441Font Awesome
Accessibility8785Font Awesome
Best Practices8796WP Fastest Cache
SEO91100WP Fastest Cache
Security6578WP Fastest Cache
TTFB453ms183msWP Fastest Cache
Composite7380WP Fastest Cache
Performance
Font Awesome
44
WP Fastest Cache
41
Accessibility
Font Awesome
87
WP Fastest Cache
85
Security
Font Awesome
65
WP Fastest Cache
78
SEO
Font Awesome
91
WP Fastest Cache
100
Composite
Font Awesome
73
WP Fastest Cache
80

WP Fastest Cache outperforms Font Awesome in 5 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (80 vs 73). Font Awesome leads in performance, accessibility.

When to choose Font Awesome

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

When to choose WP Fastest Cache

Choose WP Fastest Cache 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 575 audited Font Awesome sites and 1 audited WP Fastest 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 WP Fastest Cache?
Based on real BeaverCheck audits, Font Awesome sites score higher on Lighthouse performance (44 vs 41 on average).
Which has better security, Font Awesome or WP Fastest Cache?
WP Fastest Cache sites score higher on security analysis (78 vs 65 on average).
Which has better accessibility, Font Awesome or WP Fastest Cache?
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 WP Fastest Cache?
WP Fastest Cache sites score higher on Lighthouse SEO signals (100 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 WP Fastest Cache?
WP Fastest Cache sites show lower Time to First Byte (183 ms vs 453 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 WP Fastest Cache 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