Frameworks performance

How JavaScript frameworks score across LCP, INP and CLS.

Field data PhoneDesktopAll Scope All sites Q1 2026 edition · Phone field outcomes
Metric LCP INP CLS
1

At a glance the headline numbers for Frameworks performance

How JavaScript frameworks score across LCP, INP and CLS.

10
Frameworks ranked
After min-sites filter
82,942
Sites in sample
Combined across all items
2.0s
Best LCP (p75)
htmx
The State of Web Vitals · Q1 2026 · 94,910 sites · phone field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
2

The ranking sorted by LCP at p75, fastest first

# Framework LCP p75 Passing Sites
1 htmx 2.0s 88.8%
141
2 Alpine.js 2.0s 87.7%
1,306
3 React 2.0s 85.0%
4,396
4 Svelte 2.2s 82.3%
219
5 Next.js 2.2s 83.1%
854
6 jQuery 2.3s 80.5%
67,958
7 Vue 2.4s 77.0%
5,677
8 Gatsby 2.6s 63.6%
105
9 Nuxt 2.7s 69.8%
628
10 Angular 2.9s 63.6%
1,658
The State of Web Vitals · Q1 2026 · 94,910 sites · phone field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
3

Passing LCP per framework which group passes the LCP most often

FrameworkSitesPassing LCPp75
htmx 0.1% 141 89% 2.0s
Alpine.js 1.4% 1,306 88% 2.0s
React 4.6% 4,396 85% 2.0s
Next.js 0.9% 854 83% 2.2s
Svelte 0.2% 219 82% 2.2s
jQuery 71.6% 67,958 81% 2.3s
Vue 6% 5,677 77% 2.4s
Remix 0% 26 77% 2.3s
Nuxt 0.7% 628 70% 2.7s
Angular 1.7% 1,658 64% 2.9s
Gatsby 0.1% 105 64% 2.6s
Good Needs Improvement Poor Sorted best-passing first · median colored by its own rating · pass = good LCP (2.5s at p75) · one value per site

89% of htmx sites pass LCP. Gatsby trails 25 points behind, leaving 36% of its sites failing. computed

The State of Web Vitals · Q1 2026 · 94,910 sites · phone field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
4

All five vitals at once the whole category without toggling - cell is the pass rate, small number the p75

LCP
INP
CLS
FCP
TTFB
jQuery 71.6%
812.3s
95121ms
900.02
731.9s
521.3s
Vue 6%
772.4s
92145ms
840.04
711.9s
531.3s
React 4.6%
852.0s
93121ms
920.01
821.6s
681.0s
Angular 1.7%
642.9s
80188ms
580.26
682.0s
78731ms
Alpine.js 1.4%
882.0s
95133ms
920.01
791.7s
551.1s
Next.js 0.9%
832.2s
62253ms
670.17
831.6s
66900ms
Nuxt 0.7%
702.7s
86169ms
720.12
691.9s
581.0s
Svelte 0.2%
822.2s
90158ms
870.04
801.6s
70945ms
htmx 0.1%
892.0s
99125ms
890.03
871.6s
481.1s
Gatsby 0.1%
642.6s
67214ms
660.19
891.5s
74801ms
Remix 0%
772.3s
87147ms
770.07
592.1s
441.4s
60%95%+ passing Cell: pass rate, small number = p75 · faded rows: under 100 sites

One row per framework, one column per vital - the cell is the share of sites passing, the small number the p75. No toggling needed to see where the category actually differs.

htmx leads on LCP: 89% of its sites pass. Gatsby trails at 64%. computed

The State of Web Vitals · Q1 2026 · 94,910 sites · phone field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
5

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

A JavaScript framework shapes how much code runs in the browser to put your page on the screen. Some render on the server and ship light; others send a large bundle and rebuild the page on the client, which lands on the main thread and shows up in INP. The framework is not destiny, but its defaults and how you use them decide how much JavaScript the visitor has to pay for.

Start by looking at what ships to the browser and when it runs. Render on the server where you can, split the bundle so each page only loads what it needs, and defer the work that is not required for the first interaction. Framework JavaScript runs on the main thread, so the less of it the browser has to execute, the better INP gets.

How does your framework affect Core Web Vitals?

Among the JavaScript frameworks, htmx reaches a good LCP on 88.8% of sites; Angular on 63.6%.

Related signals CDN (7) → CMS (10) → Chrome field data from 94,910 sites, representing millions of real page loads · How we measured