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.

99.3%
Best: jQuery
good INP
98.0%
Typical framework
good INP
85.1%
Worst: Gatsby
good INP

jQuery passes INP most often of any framework. 99.3% of its sites pass. Gatsby passes least at 85.1%. The gap is 14 percentage points.

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

The ranking sorted by INP at p75, fastest first

# Framework INP p75 Passing Sites
1 jQuery 62ms 99.3%
129,438
2 htmx 65ms 100.0%
268
3 React 66ms 98.9%
8,475
4 Alpine.js 66ms 99.3%
2,409
5 Vue 76ms 98.9%
10,724
6 Svelte 84ms 98.0%
416
7 Nuxt 99ms 97.2%
1,162
8 Angular 107ms 96.5%
3,035
9 Next.js 109ms 94.8%
1,622
10 Gatsby 130ms 85.1%
197
The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 sites · desktop field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
3

Passing INP per framework which group passes the INP most often

FrameworkSitesPassing INPp75
Remix 0% 49 100% 100ms
htmx 0.1% 268 100% 65ms
jQuery 69.9% 129,438 99% 62ms
Alpine.js 1.3% 2,409 99% 66ms
Vue 5.8% 10,724 99% 76ms
React 4.6% 8,475 99% 66ms
Svelte 0.2% 416 98% 84ms
Nuxt 0.6% 1,162 97% 99ms
Angular 1.6% 3,035 97% 107ms
Next.js 0.9% 1,622 95% 109ms
Gatsby 0.1% 197 85% 130ms
Good Needs Improvement Poor Sorted best-passing first · median colored by its own rating · pass = good INP (200ms at p75) · one value per site

100% of htmx sites pass INP. Gatsby trails 15 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.

htmx leads on INP: 100% of its sites pass. Gatsby trails at 85%. 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, jQuery reaches a good INP on 99.3% of sites; Gatsby on 85.1%.

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