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 October 2026 edition · Desktop field outcomes
1

At a glance the headline numbers for INP distribution

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

98.9%
of sites pass INP
49ms
Typical site
95ms
Worst 10% of sites

98.9% of sites pass INP. The typical site's INP is 49ms. The worst 10% are above 95ms.

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

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

0 7,366 14,731 22,097 29,462
0–25ms1,664 sites2.7% of all sites
25–50ms29,462 sites48.4% of all sites
50–75ms18,473 sites30.3% of all sites
75–100ms6,060 sites9.9% of all sites
100–125ms2,622 sites4.3% of all sites
125–150ms1,033 sites1.7% of all sites
150–175ms555 sites0.9% of all sites
175–200ms355 sites0.6% of all sites
200–225ms180 sites0.3% of all sites
225–250ms120 sites0.2% of all sites
250–275ms89 sites0.1% of all sites
275–300ms49 sites0.1% of all sites
300–325ms36 sites0.1% of all sites
325–350ms26 sites<0.1% of all sites
350–375ms35 sites0.1% of all sites
375–400ms20 sites<0.1% of all sites
400ms and up143 sites0.2% of all sites
p50 = 49ms
p75 = 66ms
p90 = 95ms
p99 = 210ms
0–25 25–50 50–75 75–100 100–125 125–150 150–175 175–200 200–225 225–250 250–275 275–300 300–325 325–350 350–375 375–400 400+
Good (≤200ms) Needs improvement Poor (>500ms) Percentile markers Total: 60,922 sites

Most sites pass INP. 98.9% sit at or under 200ms. The typical site is at 49ms, and 75% of sites stay under 66ms. Only 1.1% fail INP. The slowest 10% are above 95ms, and the slowest 1% are above 210ms.

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

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

INP
98.9%
0.2%
Good Needs Improvement Poor

98.9% of sites pass INP. 1.0% are in the needs improvement band, between 200ms and 500ms. 0.2% are poor, above 500ms. 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

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?

98.9% of sites have a good INP. The typical site sits at 66ms at the 75th percentile; the slowest 1% pass 210ms.

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 → 212,308 crawled sites with Chrome field data, representing millions of real page loads · How we measured