Frameworks performance

How JavaScript frameworks score across LCP, INP and CLS.

Field data PhoneDesktopAll Scope All sites Q2 2026 edition · Desktop field outcomes
Metric LCP INP CLS FCP TTFB
1

At a glance the headline numbers for Frameworks performance

How JavaScript frameworks score across LCP, INP and CLS.

79.5%
Best: React
good CLS
77.4%
Most used: jQuery
good CLS
48.7%
Worst: Angular
good CLS

React passes CLS most often of any framework. 79.5% of its sites pass. Angular passes least at 48.7%. jQuery (the most-used framework) sits at 77.4%. The gap is 31 percentage points.

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

The ranking sorted by CLS at p75, fastest first

# Framework CLS p75 Passing Sites
1 htmx 0.06 80.1%
268
2 Svelte 0.07 78.6%
416
3 Alpine.js 0.08 79.7%
2,409
4 React 0.08 79.5%
8,475
5 jQuery 0.09 77.4%
129,438
6 Vue 0.12 71.3%
10,724
7 Gatsby 0.15 66.7%
197
8 Next.js 0.15 66.4%
1,622
9 Nuxt 0.16 65.2%
1,162
10 Angular 0.28 48.7%
3,035
The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 sites · desktop field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
3

Passing CLS per framework which group passes the CLS most often

FrameworkSitesPassing CLSp75
htmx 0.1% 268 80% 0.06
Alpine.js 1.3% 2,409 80% 0.08
React 4.6% 8,475 80% 0.08
Svelte 0.2% 416 79% 0.07
jQuery 69.9% 129,438 77% 0.09
Remix 0% 49 71% 0.11
Vue 5.8% 10,724 71% 0.12
Gatsby 0.1% 197 67% 0.15
Next.js 0.9% 1,622 66% 0.15
Nuxt 0.6% 1,162 65% 0.16
Angular 1.6% 3,035 49% 0.28
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

80% of htmx sites pass CLS. Angular trails 31 points behind, leaving 51% of its sites failing. computed

The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 sites · desktop 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 69.9%
852.0s
9962ms
770.09
801.6s
571.2s
Vue 5.8%
832.1s
9976ms
710.12
801.6s
611.1s
React 4.6%
792.3s
9966ms
800.08
771.7s
531.5s
Angular 1.6%
762.5s
97107ms
490.28
801.6s
82645ms
Alpine.js 1.3%
921.7s
9966ms
800.08
881.4s
621.1s
Next.js 0.9%
862.0s
95109ms
660.15
861.4s
70883ms
Nuxt 0.6%
782.4s
9799ms
650.16
781.7s
651.0s
Svelte 0.2%
881.9s
9884ms
790.07
871.4s
74823ms
htmx 0.1%
961.7s
10065ms
800.06
931.3s
641.1s
Gatsby 0.1%
832.3s
85130ms
670.15
94999ms
88571ms
Remix 0%
862.0s
100100ms
710.11
891.3s
62986ms
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: 80% of its sites pass. Angular trails at 49%. computed

The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 sites · desktop 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 CLS on 80.1% of sites; Angular on 48.7%.

Related signals CDN (7) → CMS (11) → Chrome field data from 189,915 sites, representing millions of real page loads · How we measured