The State of Web Vitals

FCP distribution

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

Field data PhoneDesktopAll Scope All sites October 2026 edition · Desktop field outcomes
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
1.0s
Typical site
2.3s
Worst 10% of sites

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 · October 2026 · 212,308 crawled sites · desktop field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
2

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

0 3,181 6,362 9,542 12,723
0–200ms24 sites<0.1% of all sites
200–400ms1,720 sites2.4% of all sites
400–600ms8,249 sites11.7% of all sites
600–800ms12,723 sites18.1% of all sites
800–1000ms11,290 sites16.1% of all sites
1000–1200ms8,772 sites12.5% of all sites
1200–1400ms6,540 sites9.3% of all sites
1400–1600ms4,872 sites6.9% of all sites
1600–1800ms3,659 sites5.2% of all sites
1800–2000ms2,751 sites3.9% of all sites
2000–2200ms2,090 sites3% of all sites
2200–2400ms1,532 sites2.2% of all sites
2400–2600ms1,191 sites1.7% of all sites
2600–2800ms986 sites1.4% of all sites
2800–3000ms759 sites1.1% of all sites
3000–3200ms592 sites0.8% of all sites
3200ms and up2,552 sites3.6% of all sites
p50 = 1s
p75 = 1.5s
p90 = 2.3s
p99 = 4.6s
0–200 200–400 400–600 600–800 800–1000 1000–1200 1200–1400 1400–1600 1600–1800 1800–2000 2000–2200 2200–2400 2400–2600 2600–2800 2800–3000 3000–3200 3200+
Good (≤1.8s) Needs improvement Poor (>3s) Percentile markers Total: 70,302 sites

Most sites are good on FCP. 82.3% sit at or under 1.8s. The typical site is at 1.0s, and 75% of sites stay under 1.5s. Only 17.7% miss good FCP. The slowest 10% are above 2.3s, and the slowest 1% are above 4.6s.

The State of Web Vitals · October 2026 · 212,308 crawled sites · desktop field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
3

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

FCP
82.3%
13.2%
4.5%
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 · October 2026 · 212,308 crawled 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.

Go fix it Eliminate render-blocking resources → Remove unused CSS → 103 Early Hints →
Related signals CLS → LCP → TTFB → INP → 212,308 crawled sites with Chrome field data, representing millions of real page loads · How we measured