Frameworks performance

How JavaScript frameworks score across LCP, INP and CLS.

Field data PhoneDesktopAll Scope All sites Q2 2026 edition · Phone 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.

90.7%
Best: Gatsby
good FCP
72.2%
Most used: jQuery
good FCP
68.5%
Worst: Angular
good FCP

Gatsby passes FCP most often of any framework. 90.7% of its sites pass. Angular passes least at 68.5%. jQuery (the most-used framework) sits at 72.2%. The gap is 22 percentage points.

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

The ranking sorted by FCP at p75, fastest first

# Framework FCP p75 Passing Sites
1 Gatsby 1.5s 90.7%
197
2 React 1.6s 81.1%
8,475
3 htmx 1.6s 85.3%
268
4 Next.js 1.6s 82.8%
1,622
5 Svelte 1.6s 80.5%
416
6 Alpine.js 1.7s 79.7%
2,409
7 jQuery 1.9s 72.2%
129,438
8 Nuxt 2.0s 68.2%
1,162
9 Vue 2.0s 69.4%
10,724
10 Angular 2.0s 68.5%
3,035
The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 sites · phone field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
3

Passing FCP per framework which group passes the FCP most often

FrameworkSitesPassing FCPp75
Gatsby 0.1% 197 91% 1.5s
htmx 0.1% 268 85% 1.6s
Next.js 0.9% 1,622 83% 1.6s
React 4.6% 8,475 81% 1.6s
Svelte 0.2% 416 81% 1.6s
Alpine.js 1.3% 2,409 80% 1.7s
Remix 0% 49 73% 1.8s
jQuery 69.9% 129,438 72% 1.9s
Vue 5.8% 10,724 69% 2.0s
Angular 1.6% 3,035 69% 2.0s
Nuxt 0.6% 1,162 68% 2.0s
Good Needs Improvement Poor Sorted best-passing first · median colored by its own rating · pass = good FCP (1.8s at p75) · one value per site

91% of Gatsby sites pass FCP. Nuxt trails 23 points behind, leaving 32% of its sites failing. computed

The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 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 69.9%
802.3s
95121ms
900.02
721.9s
521.3s
Vue 5.8%
762.5s
92144ms
840.04
692.0s
531.3s
React 4.6%
842.1s
92121ms
920.01
811.6s
681.0s
Angular 1.6%
652.9s
79190ms
580.26
692.0s
77758ms
Alpine.js 1.3%
892.0s
94135ms
920.01
801.7s
551.2s
Next.js 0.9%
832.2s
60271ms
650.18
831.6s
67915ms
Nuxt 0.6%
702.7s
85172ms
720.12
682.0s
601.0s
Svelte 0.2%
832.1s
90152ms
850.05
811.6s
68945ms
htmx 0.1%
911.9s
98128ms
920.01
851.6s
571.1s
Gatsby 0.1%
622.8s
69214ms
660.20
911.5s
77765ms
Remix 0%
762.3s
80191ms
730.12
731.8s
481.2s
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.

Gatsby leads on FCP: 91% of its sites pass. Nuxt trails at 68%. computed

The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 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, Gatsby reaches a good FCP on 90.7% of sites; Angular on 68.5%.

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