CLS distribution

How CLS is distributed across real-user data, plus pass-rate breakdown.

Field data PhoneDesktopAll Scope All sites Q2 2026 edition · Phone field outcomes
1

At a glance the headline numbers for CLS distribution

How CLS is distributed across real-user data, plus pass-rate breakdown.

88.8%
of sites pass CLS
0.00
Typical site
0.12
Worst 10% of sites

88.8% of sites pass CLS. The typical site's CLS is 0.00. The worst 10% are above 0.12.

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

The CLS distribution site count at each CLS, from good to poor

0 21,047 42,093 63,140 84,186
0.00–0.0284,186 sites73.8% of all sites
0.02–0.046,743 sites5.9% of all sites
0.04–0.063,968 sites3.5% of all sites
0.06–0.083,030 sites2.7% of all sites
0.08–0.102,432 sites2.1% of all sites
0.10–0.121,929 sites1.7% of all sites
0.12–0.141,538 sites1.3% of all sites
0.14–0.161,264 sites1.1% of all sites
0.16–0.18987 sites0.9% of all sites
0.18–0.20811 sites0.7% of all sites
0.20–0.22683 sites0.6% of all sites
0.22–0.24620 sites0.5% of all sites
0.24–0.26496 sites0.4% of all sites
0.26–0.28448 sites0.4% of all sites
0.28–0.30439 sites0.4% of all sites
0.30–0.32316 sites0.3% of all sites
0.32–0.34319 sites0.3% of all sites
0.34–0.36294 sites0.3% of all sites
0.36–0.38217 sites0.2% of all sites
0.38–0.40200 sites0.2% of all sites
0.40 and up3,196 sites2.8% of all sites
p50 = 0.00
p75 = 0.02
p90 = 0.12
p99 = 0.73
0.00–0.02 0.02–0.04 0.04–0.06 0.06–0.08 0.08–0.10 0.10–0.12 0.12–0.14 0.14–0.16 0.16–0.18 0.18–0.20 0.20–0.22 0.22–0.24 0.24–0.26 0.26–0.28 0.28–0.30 0.30–0.32 0.32–0.34 0.34–0.36 0.36–0.38 0.38–0.40 0.40+
Good (≤0.10) Needs improvement Poor (>0.25) Percentile markers Total: 114,116 sites

The tallest bar is between 0 and 0.02. 74% of sites are in that one range, 0.08 under Google's 0.1 limit. Half of all sites report a CLS of 0. The tail is long. The worst 10% are above 0.12 and the worst 1% above 0.73.

The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 sites · phone field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
3

The CLS pass rate the share of sites that are good, needs improvement and poor

CLS
88.8%
6.4%
4.8%
Good Needs Improvement Poor

88.8% of sites pass CLS. 6.4% are in the needs improvement band, between 0.1 and 0.25. 4.8% are poor, above 0.25. Misses split about evenly between the two.

The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 sites · phone field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
4

Why this matters for the Core Web Vitals, and where to start fixing it

Cumulative Layout Shift measures how much the page moves around while it loads. A button jumps just as someone goes to tap it, an ad pushes the article down, the text reflows when a late font arrives. Every one of those is a layout shift, and they add up into a score that reflects how stable the page feels. Unlike the other vitals, CLS is rarely about speed and almost always about reserving space.

Start by giving everything that loads late a place to land. Set width and height on images and video so the browser reserves the box before the file arrives. Reserve space for ads, embeds and banners instead of letting them push content. Load fonts so the fallback and the web font take the same room, and keep animations on transform rather than properties that trigger layout.

How are sites doing on CLS?

88.8% of sites have a good CLS. The typical site sits at 0.02 at the 75th percentile; the worst 1% reach 0.73.

Related signals INP → TTFB → LCP → FCP → Chrome field data from 189,915 sites, representing millions of real page loads · How we measured