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 · 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
94ms
Worst 10% of sites

98.9% of sites pass INP. The typical site's INP is 49ms. The worst 10% are above 94ms.

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

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

0 8,046 16,091 24,137 32,182
0ms–40msms14,228 sites26.1% of all sites
40ms–80msms32,182 sites58.9% of all sites
80ms–120msms5,554 sites10.2% of all sites
120ms–160msms1,431 sites2.6% of all sites
160ms–200msms583 sites1.1% of all sites
200ms–240msms226 sites0.4% of all sites
240ms–280msms138 sites0.3% of all sites
280ms–320msms60 sites0.1% of all sites
320ms–360msms37 sites0.1% of all sites
360ms–400msms40 sites0.1% of all sites
400ms–440msms16 sites<0.1% of all sites
440ms–480msms19 sites<0.1% of all sites
480ms–520msms28 sites0.1% of all sites
520ms–560msms11 sites<0.1% of all sites
560ms–600msms4 sites<0.1% of all sites
600ms–640msms6 sites<0.1% of all sites
640ms–680msms4 sites<0.1% of all sites
680ms–720msms5 sites<0.1% of all sites
720ms–760msms5 sites<0.1% of all sites
760ms–800msms2 sites<0.1% of all sites
800ms–840msms2 sites<0.1% of all sites
840ms–880msms3 sites<0.1% of all sites
880ms–920msms4 sites<0.1% of all sites
920ms–960msms0 sites0% of all sites
960ms–1sms4 sites<0.1% of all sites
1sms and up12 sites<0.1% of all sites
p50 = 49ms
p75 = 65ms
p90 = 94ms
p99 = 210ms
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: 54,604 sites

The tallest bar is between 40ms and 80ms. 59% of sites are in that one range, 120ms under Google's 200ms limit. Half of all sites are at 49ms or less. The worst 10% are above 94ms and the worst 1% above 210ms. That is 4.3 times the typical site.

The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 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 · 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

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 65ms 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 → Chrome field data from 189,915 sites, representing millions of real page loads · How we measured