The State of Web Vitals

FCP distribution

How FCP is distributed across real-user data, plus pass-rate breakdown.

Field data PhoneDesktopAll Scope All sites Q2 2026 edition · All devices field outcomes
1

At a glance the headline numbers for FCP distribution

How FCP is distributed across real-user data, plus pass-rate breakdown.

76.6%
of sites good on FCP
1.2s
Typical site
2.6s
Worst 10% of sites

76.6% of sites good on FCP. The typical site's FCP is 1.2s. The worst 10% are above 2.6s.

The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 sites · all devices field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
2

The FCP distribution site count at each FCP, from good to poor

0 7,009 14,018 21,027 28,036
0–200ms12 sites<0.1% of all sites
200–400ms1,535 sites0.9% of all sites
400–600ms11,926 sites6.7% of all sites
600–800ms24,561 sites13.9% of all sites
800–1000ms28,036 sites15.9% of all sites
1000–1200ms24,264 sites13.7% of all sites
1200–1400ms19,137 sites10.8% of all sites
1400–1600ms14,663 sites8.3% of all sites
1600–1800ms11,186 sites6.3% of all sites
1800–2000ms8,539 sites4.8% of all sites
2000–2200ms6,796 sites3.8% of all sites
2200–2400ms5,246 sites3% of all sites
2400–2600ms3,983 sites2.3% of all sites
2600–2800ms3,372 sites1.9% of all sites
2800–3000ms2,519 sites1.4% of all sites
3000–3200ms2,059 sites1.2% of all sites
3200ms and up8,956 sites5.1% of all sites
p50 = 1.2s
p75 = 1.7s
p90 = 2.6s
p99 = 4.9s
0–200 200–400 400–600 600–800 800–1000 1000–1200 1200–1400 1400–1600 1600–1800 1800–2000 2000–2200 2200–2400 2400–2600 2600–2800 2800–3000 3000–3200 3200+
Good (≤1.8s) Needs improvement Poor (>3s) Percentile markers Total: 176,790 sites

The tallest bar is between 800ms and 1s. 16% of sites are in that one range, 800ms under Google's 1.8s limit. Half of all sites are at 1.2s or less. The tail is long. The worst 10% are above 2.6s and the worst 1% above 4.9s. That is 4.2 times the typical site.

The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 sites · all devices field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
3

The FCP pass rate the share of sites that are good, needs improvement and poor

FCP
76.6%
17.2%
6.2%
Good Needs Improvement Poor

76.6% of sites are good on FCP. 17.2% are in the needs improvement band, between 1.8s and 3s. 6.2% are poor, above 3s. A miss is usually needs improvement, not poor.

The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 sites · all devices field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
4

Why this matters for the Core Web Vitals, and where to start fixing it

First Contentful Paint is when the first piece of content appears, the first text or image that tells the visitor something is happening. It is a diagnostic metric rather than a Core Web Vital, but it sits on the path to LCP: if the first paint is slow, the largest paint is almost always slow too. FCP is usually held up by the server response and by render-blocking CSS and JavaScript in the head.

Start with what blocks the first paint. Cut render-blocking resources, remove the CSS you do not use, and get the critical bytes to the browser as early as you can. Early Hints can let the browser start fetching key resources before the HTML even arrives. Improving FCP tends to pull LCP along with it.

How are sites doing on FCP?

76.6% of sites have a good FCP. The typical site sits at 1.7s at the 75th percentile; the slowest 1% pass 4.9s.

Go fix it Eliminate render-blocking resources → Remove unused CSS → 103 Early Hints →
Related signals CLS → LCP → TTFB → INP → Chrome field data from 189,915 sites, representing millions of real page loads · How we measured