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.

76.1%
Best: Angular
good TTFB
62.7%
Typical framework
good TTFB
51.4%
Worst: jQuery
good TTFB

Angular passes TTFB most often of any framework. 76.1% of its sites pass. jQuery (the most-used framework) passes least at 51.4%. The gap is 25 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 TTFB at p75, fastest first

# Framework TTFB p75 Passing Sites
1 Gatsby 749ms 78.0%
197
2 Angular 771ms 76.1%
3,035
3 Next.js 884ms 68.7%
1,622
4 Svelte 886ms 71.0%
416
5 Nuxt 1.0s 62.7%
1,162
6 React 1.1s 66.0%
8,475
7 htmx 1.1s 58.1%
268
8 Alpine.js 1.1s 56.8%
2,409
9 Vue 1.4s 52.4%
10,724
10 jQuery 1.4s 51.4%
129,438
The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 sites · all devices field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
3

Passing TTFB per framework which group passes the TTFB most often

FrameworkSitesPassing TTFBp75
Gatsby 0.1% 197 78% 749ms
Angular 1.6% 3,035 76% 771ms
Svelte 0.2% 416 71% 886ms
Next.js 0.9% 1,622 69% 884ms
React 4.6% 8,475 66% 1.1s
Nuxt 0.6% 1,162 63% 1.0s
htmx 0.1% 268 58% 1.1s
Alpine.js 1.3% 2,409 57% 1.1s
Remix 0% 49 56% 1.1s
Vue 5.8% 10,724 52% 1.4s
jQuery 69.9% 129,438 51% 1.4s
Good Needs Improvement Poor Sorted best-passing first · median colored by its own rating · pass = good TTFB (800ms at p75) · one value per site

78% of Gatsby sites pass TTFB. JQuery trails 27 points behind, leaving 49% 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.

Gatsby leads on TTFB: 78% of its sites pass. jQuery trails at 51%. 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, Gatsby reaches a good TTFB on 78.0% of sites; jQuery on 51.4%.

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