Frameworks performance

How JavaScript frameworks score across LCP, INP and CLS.

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

99.1%
Best: htmx
good INP
96.6%
Most used: jQuery
good INP
67.3%
Worst: Next.js
good INP

htmx passes INP most often of any framework. 99.1% of its sites pass. Next.js passes least at 67.3%. jQuery (the most-used framework) sits at 96.6%. The gap is 32 percentage points.

The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 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 React 103ms 95.0%
8,475
2 jQuery 104ms 96.6%
129,438
3 htmx 108ms 99.1%
268
4 Alpine.js 115ms 96.6%
2,409
5 Vue 127ms 95.2%
10,724
6 Svelte 137ms 93.3%
416
7 Nuxt 155ms 88.9%
1,162
8 Angular 161ms 88.1%
3,035
9 Gatsby 180ms 82.2%
197
10 Next.js 236ms 67.3%
1,622
The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 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% 268 99% 108ms
jQuery 69.9% 129,438 97% 104ms
Alpine.js 1.3% 2,409 97% 115ms
Vue 5.8% 10,724 95% 127ms
React 4.6% 8,475 95% 103ms
Svelte 0.2% 416 93% 137ms
Nuxt 0.6% 1,162 89% 155ms
Remix 0% 49 89% 147ms
Angular 1.6% 3,035 88% 161ms
Gatsby 0.1% 197 82% 180ms
Next.js 0.9% 1,622 67% 236ms
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 32 points behind, leaving 33% of its sites failing. computed

The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 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 69.9%
812.2s
97104ms
880.04
731.9s
511.4s
Vue 5.8%
762.4s
95127ms
830.06
711.9s
521.4s
React 4.6%
852.0s
95103ms
920.01
811.5s
661.1s
Angular 1.6%
662.9s
88161ms
560.24
702.0s
76771ms
Alpine.js 1.3%
891.9s
97115ms
900.03
831.6s
571.1s
Next.js 0.9%
852.1s
67236ms
660.17
841.5s
69884ms
Nuxt 0.6%
732.6s
89155ms
690.14
731.9s
631.0s
Svelte 0.2%
832.1s
93137ms
850.05
821.6s
71886ms
htmx 0.1%
911.9s
99108ms
880.03
841.5s
581.1s
Gatsby 0.1%
722.5s
82180ms
640.20
941.4s
78749ms
Remix 0%
842.2s
89147ms
710.11
821.6s
561.1s
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 67%. computed

The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 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 INP on 95.0% of sites; Next.js on 67.3%.

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