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 · Desktop field outcomes
1

At a glance the headline numbers for INP distribution

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

98.9%
of sites pass INP
49ms
Typical site
94ms
Worst 10% of sites

98.9% of sites pass INP. The typical site's INP is 49ms. The worst 10% are above 94ms.

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

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

0 6,658 13,317 19,975 26,633
0–25ms1,515 sites2.8% of all sites
25–50ms26,633 sites48.8% of all sites
50–75ms16,454 sites30.2% of all sites
75–100ms5,275 sites9.7% of all sites
100–125ms2,338 sites4.3% of all sites
125–150ms909 sites1.7% of all sites
150–175ms479 sites0.9% of all sites
175–200ms304 sites0.6% of all sites
200–225ms160 sites0.3% of all sites
225–250ms109 sites0.2% of all sites
250–275ms81 sites0.1% of all sites
275–300ms44 sites0.1% of all sites
300–325ms31 sites0.1% of all sites
325–350ms23 sites<0.1% of all sites
350–375ms32 sites0.1% of all sites
375–400ms18 sites<0.1% of all sites
400ms and up125 sites0.2% of all sites
p50 = 49ms
p75 = 65ms
p90 = 94ms
p99 = 210ms
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: 54,530 sites

The tallest bar is between 25ms and 50ms. 49% of sites are in that one range, 150ms under Google's 200ms limit. Half of all sites are at 49ms or less. The worst 10% are above 94ms and the worst 1% above 210ms. That is 4.3 times the typical site.

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

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

INP
98.9%
0.2%
Good Needs Improvement Poor

98.9% of sites pass INP. 1.0% are in the needs improvement band, between 200ms and 500ms. 0.2% are poor, above 500ms. A miss is usually needs improvement, not poor.

The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 sites · desktop 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?

98.9% of sites have a good INP. The typical site sits at 65ms at the 75th percentile; the slowest 1% pass 210ms.

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