1
At a glance the headline numbers for TTFB distribution
How TTFB is distributed across real-user data, plus pass-rate breakdown.
63.0%
of sites good on TTFB
63.0% of sites good on TTFB. The typical site's TTFB is 596ms. The worst 10% are above 1.8s.
The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 sites · desktop field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
2
The TTFB distribution site count at each TTFB, from good to poor
0 1,733 3,466 5,199 6,932
0ms–100msms425 sites0.7% of all sites 100ms–200msms4,146 sites7.3% of all sites 200ms–300msms6,932 sites12.1% of all sites 300ms–400msms6,727 sites11.8% of all sites 400ms–500msms5,730 sites10% of all sites 500ms–600msms4,755 sites8.3% of all sites 600ms–700msms3,938 sites6.9% of all sites 700ms–800msms3,330 sites5.8% of all sites 800ms–900msms2,683 sites4.7% of all sites 900ms–1sms2,472 sites4.3% of all sites 1s–1.1sms2,015 sites3.5% of all sites 1.1s–1.2sms1,811 sites3.2% of all sites 1.2s–1.3sms1,506 sites2.6% of all sites 1.3s–1.4sms1,301 sites2.3% of all sites 1.4s–1.5sms1,135 sites2% of all sites 1.5s–1.6sms1,005 sites1.8% of all sites 1.6s–1.7sms809 sites1.4% of all sites 1.7s–1.8sms790 sites1.4% of all sites 1.8s–1.9sms652 sites1.1% of all sites 1.9s–2sms547 sites1% of all sites 2s–2.1sms490 sites0.9% of all sites 2.1s–2.2sms406 sites0.7% of all sites 2.2s–2.3sms369 sites0.6% of all sites 2.3s–2.4sms330 sites0.6% of all sites 2.4s–2.5sms310 sites0.5% of all sites 2.5s–2.6sms254 sites0.4% of all sites 2.6s–2.7sms250 sites0.4% of all sites 2.7s–2.8sms220 sites0.4% of all sites 2.8s–2.9sms176 sites0.3% of all sites 2.9s–3sms159 sites0.3% of all sites 3sms and up1,461 sites2.6% of all sites p50 = 596ms
p75 = 1.1s
p90 = 1.8s
p99 = 4s
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: 57,134 sites
The tallest bar is between 200ms and 300ms. 12% of sites are in that one range, 500ms under Google's 800ms limit. Half of all sites are at 596ms or less. The tail is long. The worst 10% are above 1.8s and the worst 1% above 4.0s. That is 6.7 times the typical site.
The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 sites · desktop 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
63.0% of sites are good on TTFB. 27.1% are in the needs improvement band, between 800ms and 1.8s. 9.8% are poor, above 1.8s. 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
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?
63.0% of sites have a good TTFB. The typical site sits at 1.1s at the 75th percentile; the slowest 1% pass 4.0s.
Chrome field data from 189,915 sites, representing millions of real page loads. How we measured.