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.

93.9%
Best: Gatsby
good FCP
79.8%
Most used: jQuery
good FCP
77.2%
Worst: React
good FCP

Gatsby passes FCP most often of any framework. 93.9% of its sites pass. React passes least at 77.2%. jQuery (the most-used framework) sits at 79.8%. The gap is 17 percentage points.

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

The ranking sorted by FCP at p75, fastest first

# Framework FCP p75 Passing Sites
1 Gatsby 999ms 93.9%
197
2 htmx 1.3s 92.9%
268
3 Svelte 1.4s 87.0%
416
4 Alpine.js 1.4s 87.8%
2,409
5 Next.js 1.4s 85.5%
1,622
6 Vue 1.6s 80.4%
10,724
7 jQuery 1.6s 79.8%
129,438
8 Angular 1.6s 79.7%
3,035
9 Nuxt 1.7s 78.1%
1,162
10 React 1.7s 77.2%
8,475
The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 sites · desktop field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
3

Passing FCP per framework which group passes the FCP most often

FrameworkSitesPassing FCPp75
Gatsby 0.1% 197 94% 999ms
htmx 0.1% 268 93% 1.3s
Remix 0% 49 89% 1.3s
Alpine.js 1.3% 2,409 88% 1.4s
Svelte 0.2% 416 87% 1.4s
Next.js 0.9% 1,622 86% 1.4s
Vue 5.8% 10,724 80% 1.6s
jQuery 69.9% 129,438 80% 1.6s
Angular 1.6% 3,035 80% 1.6s
Nuxt 0.6% 1,162 78% 1.7s
React 4.6% 8,475 77% 1.7s
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

94% of Gatsby sites pass FCP. React trails 17 points behind. 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.

Gatsby leads on FCP: 94% of its sites pass. React trails at 77%. 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, Gatsby reaches a good FCP on 93.9% of sites; React on 77.2%.

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