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
99ms
Best INP (p75)
htmx
The State of Web Vitals · Q1 2026 · 94,910 sites · all devices field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
2

The ranking sorted by INP at p75, fastest first

# Framework INP p75 Passing Sites
1 htmx 99ms 99.1%
141
2 React 103ms 95.0%
4,396
3 jQuery 104ms 96.7%
67,958
4 Alpine.js 115ms 96.7%
1,306
5 Vue 128ms 95.3%
5,677
6 Svelte 146ms 93.0%
219
7 Nuxt 155ms 89.7%
628
8 Angular 158ms 89.0%
1,658
9 Gatsby 179ms 82.0%
105
10 Next.js 219ms 69.5%
854
The State of Web Vitals · Q1 2026 · 94,910 sites · all devices field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
3

Passing INP per framework which group passes the INP most often

FrameworkSitesPassing INPp75
htmx 0.1% 141 99% 99ms
jQuery 71.6% 67,958 97% 104ms
Alpine.js 1.4% 1,306 97% 115ms
Remix 0% 26 96% 124ms
Vue 6% 5,677 95% 128ms
React 4.6% 4,396 95% 103ms
Svelte 0.2% 219 93% 146ms
Nuxt 0.7% 628 90% 155ms
Angular 1.7% 1,658 89% 158ms
Gatsby 0.1% 105 82% 179ms
Next.js 0.9% 854 70% 219ms
Good Needs Improvement Poor Sorted best-passing first · median colored by its own rating · pass = good INP (200ms at p75) · one value per site

99% of htmx sites pass INP. Next.js trails 29 points behind, leaving 30% 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.

htmx leads on INP: 99% of its sites pass. Next.js trails at 70%. 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, htmx reaches a good INP on 99.1% of sites; Next.js on 69.5%.

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