Frameworks performance

How JavaScript frameworks score across LCP, INP and CLS.

Field data PhoneDesktopAll Scope All sites Q1 2026 edition · All devices 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
0.01
Best CLS (p75)
React
The State of Web Vitals · Q1 2026 · 94,910 sites · all devices field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
2

The ranking sorted by CLS at p75, fastest first

# Framework CLS p75 Passing Sites
1 React 0.01 92.0%
4,396
2 Alpine.js 0.03 90.5%
1,306
3 jQuery 0.03 88.4%
67,958
4 Svelte 0.04 87.2%
219
5 htmx 0.04 85.3%
141
6 Vue 0.06 83.4%
5,677
7 Nuxt 0.14 69.1%
628
8 Next.js 0.16 67.8%
854
9 Gatsby 0.19 63.7%
105
10 Angular 0.24 55.9%
1,658
The State of Web Vitals · Q1 2026 · 94,910 sites · all devices field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
3

Passing CLS per framework which group passes the CLS most often

FrameworkSitesPassing CLSp75
React 4.6% 4,396 92% 0.01
Alpine.js 1.4% 1,306 91% 0.03
jQuery 71.6% 67,958 88% 0.03
Svelte 0.2% 219 87% 0.04
htmx 0.1% 141 85% 0.04
Vue 6% 5,677 83% 0.06
Remix 0% 26 69% 0.13
Nuxt 0.7% 628 69% 0.14
Next.js 0.9% 854 68% 0.16
Gatsby 0.1% 105 64% 0.19
Angular 1.7% 1,658 56% 0.24
Good Needs Improvement Poor Sorted best-passing first · median colored by its own rating · pass = good CLS (0.1 at p75) · one value per site

92% of React sites pass CLS. Angular trails 36 points behind, leaving 44% of its sites failing. computed

The State of Web Vitals · Q1 2026 · 94,910 sites · all devices 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%
812.2s
97104ms
880.03
741.8s
521.4s
Vue 6%
772.4s
95128ms
830.06
711.9s
521.3s
React 4.6%
862.0s
95103ms
920.01
821.5s
661.1s
Angular 1.7%
662.9s
89158ms
560.24
712.0s
77749ms
Alpine.js 1.4%
891.9s
97115ms
910.03
831.6s
571.1s
Next.js 0.9%
852.2s
70219ms
680.16
831.6s
68877ms
Nuxt 0.7%
712.6s
90155ms
690.14
721.9s
601.0s
Svelte 0.2%
832.1s
93146ms
870.04
811.6s
69942ms
htmx 0.1%
901.9s
9999ms
850.04
831.5s
501.1s
Gatsby 0.1%
752.5s
82179ms
640.19
921.4s
77782ms
Remix 0%
812.3s
96124ms
690.13
691.9s
461.4s
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.

React leads on CLS: 92% of its sites pass. Angular trails at 56%. computed

The State of Web Vitals · Q1 2026 · 94,910 sites · all devices 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, React reaches a good CLS on 92.0% of sites; Angular on 55.9%.

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