The State of Web Vitals

INP distribution

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

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

At a glance the headline numbers for INP distribution

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

91.9%
of sites pass INP
99ms
Typical site
183ms
Worst 10% of sites

91.9% of sites pass INP. The typical site's INP is 99ms. The worst 10% are above 183ms.

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

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

0 8,670 17,340 26,010 34,680
0–25ms15 sites<0.1% of all sites
25–50ms194 sites0.2% of all sites
50–75ms11,045 sites12.2% of all sites
75–100ms34,680 sites38.3% of all sites
100–125ms20,000 sites22.1% of all sites
125–150ms9,577 sites10.6% of all sites
150–175ms4,958 sites5.5% of all sites
175–200ms2,734 sites3% of all sites
200–225ms1,626 sites1.8% of all sites
225–250ms1,080 sites1.2% of all sites
250–275ms858 sites0.9% of all sites
275–300ms1,306 sites1.4% of all sites
300–325ms821 sites0.9% of all sites
325–350ms473 sites0.5% of all sites
350–375ms221 sites0.2% of all sites
375–400ms164 sites0.2% of all sites
400ms and up867 sites1% of all sites
p50 = 99ms
p75 = 128ms
p90 = 183ms
p99 = 391ms
0–25 25–50 50–75 75–100 100–125 125–150 150–175 175–200 200–225 225–250 250–275 275–300 300–325 325–350 350–375 375–400 400+
Good (≤200ms) Needs improvement Poor (>500ms) Percentile markers Total: 90,619 sites

The tallest bar is between 75ms and 100ms. 38% of sites are in that one range, 100ms under Google's 200ms limit. Half of all sites are at 99ms or less. The worst 10% are above 183ms and the worst 1% above 391ms. That is 3.9 times the typical site.

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

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

INP
91.9%
7.5%
0.6%
Good Needs Improvement Poor

91.9% of sites pass INP. 7.5% are in the needs improvement band, between 200ms and 500ms. 0.6% are poor, above 500ms. A miss is usually needs improvement, not poor.

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

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

Interaction to Next Paint measures how quickly the page responds when someone taps, clicks or types. It is the interactivity metric, and it is the one most sites struggle with, because it is decided by JavaScript. When the main thread is busy parsing and running scripts, it cannot respond to the interaction, and the visitor waits. Third-party tags and heavy frameworks are the usual cause.

Start by finding what runs on the main thread and cutting it down. Remove the scripts you do not need, defer the ones you do, and break up the long tasks that block input. Yielding to the main thread between chunks of work lets the browser handle interactions in between, instead of making the user wait for a long task to finish.

How are sites doing on INP?

91.9% of sites have a good INP. The typical site sits at 128ms at the 75th percentile; the slowest 1% pass 391ms.

Go fix it Yield to the main thread → 14 methods to defer JavaScript → Reduce unused JavaScript → Limit analytics and tracking scripts →
Related signals CLS → LCP → FCP → TTFB → Chrome field data from 189,915 sites, representing millions of real page loads · How we measured