The State of Web Vitals

TTFB distribution

How TTFB 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 TTFB distribution

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

58.9%
of sites good on TTFB
669ms
Typical site
1.9s
Worst 10% of sites

58.9% of sites good on TTFB. The typical site's TTFB is 669ms. The worst 10% are above 1.9s.

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

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

0 5,387 10,774 16,161 21,548
0–150ms289 sites0.3% of all sites
150–300ms8,534 sites7.9% of all sites
300–450ms21,548 sites19.8% of all sites
450–600ms17,483 sites16.1% of all sites
600–750ms12,665 sites11.7% of all sites
750–900ms9,294 sites8.6% of all sites
900–1050ms7,266 sites6.7% of all sites
1050–1200ms5,680 sites5.2% of all sites
1200–1350ms4,407 sites4.1% of all sites
1350–1500ms3,709 sites3.4% of all sites
1500–1650ms2,945 sites2.7% of all sites
1650–1800ms2,425 sites2.2% of all sites
1800–1950ms2,072 sites1.9% of all sites
1950–2100ms1,668 sites1.5% of all sites
2100–2250ms1,396 sites1.3% of all sites
2250–2400ms1,164 sites1.1% of all sites
2400ms and up6,093 sites5.6% of all sites
p50 = 669ms
p75 = 1.2s
p90 = 1.9s
p99 = 4.1s
0–150 150–300 300–450 450–600 600–750 750–900 900–1050 1050–1200 1200–1350 1350–1500 1500–1650 1650–1800 1800–1950 1950–2100 2100–2250 2250–2400 2400+
Good (≤800ms) Needs improvement Poor (>1.8s) Percentile markers Total: 108,638 sites

The tallest bar is between 300ms and 450ms. 20% of sites are in that one range, 350ms under Google's 800ms limit. Half of all sites are at 669ms or less. The tail is long. The worst 10% are above 1.9s and the worst 1% above 4.1s. That is 6.1 times the typical site.

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

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

TTFB
58.9%
29.7%
11.4%
Good Needs Improvement Poor

58.9% of sites are good on TTFB. 29.7% are in the needs improvement band, between 800ms and 1.8s. 11.4% are poor, above 1.8s. 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

Time to First Byte is how long the browser waits for the server to start replying. It is a diagnostic metric, not a Core Web Vital, but it is the foundation the others are built on: nothing can render until the first byte arrives, so a slow TTFB pushes back every paint that follows. The causes are on the server and the network, slow backend processing, no caching, or a long trip to a distant origin.

Start by getting a fast, cacheable response out the door. Cache full pages where you can, put a CDN in front so visitors are served from nearby, and keep the backend work on each request small. Early Hints use that wait: the browser can start fetching critical resources while the server is still building the page.

How are sites doing on TTFB?

58.9% of sites have a good TTFB. The typical site sits at 1.2s at the 75th percentile; the slowest 1% pass 4.1s.

Go fix it 103 Early Hints → Configure Cloudflare for Core Web Vitals → Free website cache warmer →
Related signals FCP → LCP → CLS → INP → Chrome field data from 189,915 sites, representing millions of real page loads · How we measured