1
At a glance the headline numbers for TTFB distribution
How TTFB is distributed across real-user data, plus pass-rate breakdown.
58.9%
of sites good on TTFB
58.9% of sites good on TTFB. The typical site's TTFB is 670ms. The worst 10% are above 1.9s.
The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 sites · phone field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
2
The TTFB distribution site count at each TTFB, from good to poor
0 3,536 7,072 10,608 14,144
0ms–100msms23 sites<0.1% of all sites 100ms–200msms1,310 sites1.2% of all sites 200ms–300msms7,496 sites6.9% of all sites 300ms–400msms14,144 sites13% of all sites 400ms–500msms13,919 sites12.8% of all sites 500ms–600msms11,014 sites10.1% of all sites 600ms–700msms8,914 sites8.2% of all sites 700ms–800msms7,177 sites6.6% of all sites 800ms–900msms5,893 sites5.4% of all sites 900ms–1sms4,967 sites4.6% of all sites 1s–1.1sms4,355 sites4% of all sites 1.1s–1.2sms3,641 sites3.3% of all sites 1.2s–1.3sms3,021 sites2.8% of all sites 1.3s–1.4sms2,711 sites2.5% of all sites 1.4s–1.5sms2,397 sites2.2% of all sites 1.5s–1.6sms2,016 sites1.9% of all sites 1.6s–1.7sms1,814 sites1.7% of all sites 1.7s–1.8sms1,550 sites1.4% of all sites 1.8s–1.9sms1,431 sites1.3% of all sites 1.9s–2sms1,201 sites1.1% of all sites 2s–2.1sms1,109 sites1% of all sites 2.1s–2.2sms972 sites0.9% of all sites 2.2s–2.3sms798 sites0.7% of all sites 2.3s–2.4sms793 sites0.7% of all sites 2.4s–2.5sms685 sites0.6% of all sites 2.5s–2.6sms610 sites0.6% of all sites 2.6s–2.7sms479 sites0.4% of all sites 2.7s–2.8sms495 sites0.5% of all sites 2.8s–2.9sms399 sites0.4% of all sites 2.9s–3sms349 sites0.3% of all sites 3sms and up3,081 sites2.8% of all sites p50 = 670ms
p75 = 1.2s
p90 = 1.9s
p99 = 4.1s
0ms–100ms 100ms–200ms 200ms–300ms 300ms–400ms 400ms–500ms 500ms–600ms 600ms–700ms 700ms–800ms 800ms–900ms 900ms–1s 1s–1.1s 1.1s–1.2s 1.2s–1.3s 1.3s–1.4s 1.4s–1.5s 1.5s–1.6s 1.6s–1.7s 1.7s–1.8s 1.8s–1.9s 1.9s–2s 2s–2.1s 2.1s–2.2s 2.2s–2.3s 2.3s–2.4s 2.4s–2.5s 2.5s–2.6s 2.6s–2.7s 2.7s–2.8s 2.8s–2.9s 2.9s–3s 3s+
Good (≤800ms) Needs improvement Poor (>1.8s) Percentile markers Total: 108,764 sites
The tallest bar is between 300ms and 400ms. 13% of sites are in that one range, 400ms under Google's 800ms limit. Half of all sites are at 670ms or less. The tail is long. The worst 10% are above 1.9s and the worst 1% above 4.1s. That is 6.1 times the typical site.
The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 sites · phone field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
3
The TTFB pass rate the share of sites that are good, needs improvement and poor
Good Needs Improvement Poor
58.9% of sites are good on TTFB. 29.7% are in the needs improvement band, between 800ms and 1.8s. 11.4% are poor, above 1.8s. A miss is usually needs improvement, not poor.
The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 sites · phone field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
4
Why this matters for the Core Web Vitals, and where to start fixing it
Time to First Byte is how long the browser waits for the server to start replying. It is a diagnostic metric, not a Core Web Vital, but it is the foundation the others are built on: nothing can render until the first byte arrives, so a slow TTFB pushes back every paint that follows. The causes are on the server and the network, slow backend processing, no caching, or a long trip to a distant origin.
Start by getting a fast, cacheable response out the door. Cache full pages where you can, put a CDN in front so visitors are served from nearby, and keep the backend work on each request small. Early Hints use that wait: the browser can start fetching critical resources while the server is still building the page.
How are sites doing on TTFB?
58.9% of sites have a good TTFB. The typical site sits at 1.2s at the 75th percentile; the slowest 1% pass 4.1s.
Chrome field data from 189,915 sites, representing millions of real page loads. How we measured.