The State of Web Vitals

INP distribution

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

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

At a glance the headline numbers for INP distribution

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

94.7%
of sites pass INP
87ms
Typical site
153ms
Worst 10% of sites

94.7% of sites pass INP. The typical site's INP is 87ms. The worst 10% are above 153ms.

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

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

0 14,508 29,015 43,523 58,030
0ms–40msms1,509 sites1.1% of all sites
40ms–80msms53,487 sites38.1% of all sites
80ms–120msms58,030 sites41.4% of all sites
120ms–160msms14,681 sites10.5% of all sites
160ms–200msms5,088 sites3.6% of all sites
200ms–240msms2,261 sites1.6% of all sites
240ms–280msms2,037 sites1.5% of all sites
280ms–320msms1,486 sites1.1% of all sites
320ms–360msms473 sites0.3% of all sites
360ms–400msms250 sites0.2% of all sites
400ms–440msms152 sites0.1% of all sites
440ms–480msms104 sites0.1% of all sites
480ms–520msms125 sites0.1% of all sites
520ms–560msms124 sites0.1% of all sites
560ms–600msms59 sites<0.1% of all sites
600ms–640msms49 sites<0.1% of all sites
640ms–680msms36 sites<0.1% of all sites
680ms–720msms29 sites<0.1% of all sites
720ms–760msms25 sites<0.1% of all sites
760ms–800msms17 sites<0.1% of all sites
800ms–840msms24 sites<0.1% of all sites
840ms–880msms17 sites<0.1% of all sites
880ms–920msms8 sites<0.1% of all sites
920ms–960msms11 sites<0.1% of all sites
960ms–1sms17 sites<0.1% of all sites
1sms and up124 sites0.1% of all sites
p50 = 87ms
p75 = 110ms
p90 = 153ms
p99 = 334ms
0ms–40ms 40ms–80ms 80ms–120ms 120ms–160ms 160ms–200ms 200ms–240ms 240ms–280ms 280ms–320ms 320ms–360ms 360ms–400ms 400ms–440ms 440ms–480ms 480ms–520ms 520ms–560ms 560ms–600ms 600ms–640ms 640ms–680ms 680ms–720ms 720ms–760ms 760ms–800ms 800ms–840ms 840ms–880ms 880ms–920ms 920ms–960ms 960ms–1s 1s+
Good (≤200ms) Needs improvement Poor (>500ms) Percentile markers Total: 140,223 sites

The tallest bar is between 80ms and 120ms. 41% of sites are in that one range, 80ms under Google's 200ms limit. Half of all sites are at 87ms or less. The worst 10% are above 153ms and the worst 1% above 334ms. That is 3.8 times the typical site.

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

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

INP
94.7%
0.4%
Good Needs Improvement Poor

94.7% of sites pass INP. 4.8% are in the needs improvement band, between 200ms and 500ms. 0.4% are poor, above 500ms. A miss is usually needs improvement, not poor.

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

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

Interaction to Next Paint measures how quickly the page responds when someone taps, clicks or types. It is the interactivity metric, and it is the one most sites struggle with, because it is decided by JavaScript. When the main thread is busy parsing and running scripts, it cannot respond to the interaction, and the visitor waits. Third-party tags and heavy frameworks are the usual cause.

Start by finding what runs on the main thread and cutting it down. Remove the scripts you do not need, defer the ones you do, and break up the long tasks that block input. Yielding to the main thread between chunks of work lets the browser handle interactions in between, instead of making the user wait for a long task to finish.

How are sites doing on INP?

94.7% of sites have a good INP. The typical site sits at 110ms at the 75th percentile; the slowest 1% pass 334ms.

Go fix it Yield to the main thread → 14 methods to defer JavaScript → Reduce unused JavaScript → Limit analytics and tracking scripts →
Related signals CLS → LCP → FCP → TTFB → Chrome field data from 189,915 sites, representing millions of real page loads · How we measured