1
At a glance the headline numbers for FCP distribution
How FCP is distributed across real-user data, plus pass-rate breakdown.
82.3%
of sites good on FCP
82.3% of sites good on FCP. The typical site's FCP is 1.0s. The worst 10% are above 2.3s.
The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 sites · desktop field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
2
The FCP distribution site count at each FCP, from good to poor
0 3,255 6,510 9,764 13,019
0ms–250msms100 sites0.2% of all sites 250ms–500msms4,441 sites7% of all sites 500ms–750msms12,890 sites20.5% of all sites 750ms–1sms13,019 sites20.7% of all sites 1s–1.3sms9,455 sites15% of all sites 1.3s–1.5sms6,586 sites10.5% of all sites 1.5s–1.8sms4,596 sites7.3% of all sites 1.8s–2sms3,220 sites5.1% of all sites 2s–2.3sms2,242 sites3.6% of all sites 2.3s–2.5sms1,532 sites2.4% of all sites 2.5s–2.8sms1,189 sites1.9% of all sites 2.8s–3sms893 sites1.4% of all sites 3s–3.3sms652 sites1% of all sites 3.3s–3.5sms474 sites0.8% of all sites 3.5s–3.8sms360 sites0.6% of all sites 3.8s–4sms281 sites0.4% of all sites 4s–4.3sms221 sites0.4% of all sites 4.3s–4.5sms158 sites0.3% of all sites 4.5s–4.8sms121 sites0.2% of all sites 4.8s–5sms99 sites0.2% of all sites 5s–5.3sms74 sites0.1% of all sites 5.3s–5.5sms61 sites0.1% of all sites 5.5s–5.8sms60 sites0.1% of all sites 5.8s–6sms33 sites0.1% of all sites 6s–6.3sms41 sites0.1% of all sites 6.3s–6.5sms30 sites<0.1% of all sites 6.5s–6.8sms28 sites<0.1% of all sites 6.8s–7sms20 sites<0.1% of all sites 7s–7.3sms14 sites<0.1% of all sites 7.3s–7.5sms18 sites<0.1% of all sites 7.5s–7.8sms17 sites<0.1% of all sites 7.8s–8sms11 sites<0.1% of all sites 8sms and up80 sites0.1% of all sites p50 = 1s
p75 = 1.5s
p90 = 2.3s
p99 = 4.6s
0ms–250ms 250ms–500ms 500ms–750ms 750ms–1s 1s–1.3s 1.3s–1.5s 1.5s–1.8s 1.8s–2s 2s–2.3s 2.3s–2.5s 2.5s–2.8s 2.8s–3s 3s–3.3s 3.3s–3.5s 3.5s–3.8s 3.8s–4s 4s–4.3s 4.3s–4.5s 4.5s–4.8s 4.8s–5s 5s–5.3s 5.3s–5.5s 5.5s–5.8s 5.8s–6s 6s–6.3s 6.3s–6.5s 6.5s–6.8s 6.8s–7s 7s–7.3s 7.3s–7.5s 7.5s–7.8s 7.8s–8s 8s+
Good (≤1.8s) Needs improvement Poor (>3s) Percentile markers Total: 63,016 sites
The tallest bar is between 750ms and 1s. 21% of sites are in that one range, 800ms under Google's 1.8s limit. Half of all sites are at 1.0s or less. The tail is long. The worst 10% are above 2.3s and the worst 1% above 4.6s. That is 4.5 times the typical site.
The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 sites · desktop field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
3
The FCP pass rate the share of sites that are good, needs improvement and poor
Good Needs Improvement Poor
82.3% of sites are good on FCP. 13.2% are in the needs improvement band, between 1.8s and 3s. 4.5% are poor, above 3s. A miss is usually needs improvement, not poor.
The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 sites · desktop field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
4
Why this matters for the Core Web Vitals, and where to start fixing it
First Contentful Paint is when the first piece of content appears, the first text or image that tells the visitor something is happening. It is a diagnostic metric rather than a Core Web Vital, but it sits on the path to LCP: if the first paint is slow, the largest paint is almost always slow too. FCP is usually held up by the server response and by render-blocking CSS and JavaScript in the head.
Start with what blocks the first paint. Cut render-blocking resources, remove the CSS you do not use, and get the critical bytes to the browser as early as you can. Early Hints can let the browser start fetching key resources before the HTML even arrives. Improving FCP tends to pull LCP along with it.
How are sites doing on FCP?
82.3% of sites have a good FCP. The typical site sits at 1.5s at the 75th percentile; the slowest 1% pass 4.6s.
Chrome field data from 189,915 sites, representing millions of real page loads. How we measured.