Cacheable resource share on React sites

58.3% of audited sites (5,575) mark 80% or more of their subresources as cacheable and reach 88% good LCP (1.3s median), compared to 62% good LCP (2.2s median) on the 9.5% caching under 20% of resources.

Field data PhoneDesktopAll Scope All sites October 2026 edition · All devices field outcomes · React sites only
React Scoped to 9,570 sites out of 210,902 analyzed (frameworks) Compare with all sites →

28.8% of React sites use 50% to 79% cacheable resources cacheable resource share, and 88% of those sites have a good LCP, against 85% of all React sites.

The State of Web Vitals · October 2026 · React: 9,570 crawled sites · 9,110 with all devices field dataBy Arjen Karel · corewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
1

LCP pass rate

Sites with 50% to 79% cacheable resources cacheable resource share have a good LCP most often: 88%, against 85% of all React sites. Sites with under 20% cacheable resources cacheable share have it least often, at 62%.

SitesGood, needs improvement, poor LCPMedian
All React sites9,11085%1.4s
50% to 79% cacheable resources 28.8%2,63988%1.4s
80%+ cacheable resources 58.3%5,28988%1.3s
20% to 49% cacheable resources 3.5%32170%1.9s
Under 20% cacheable resources 9.5%86162%2.2s
GoodNeeds improvementPoorSites: with Chrome field data
The State of Web Vitals · October 2026 · React: 9,570 crawled sites · 9,110 with all devices field dataBy Arjen Karel · corewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
2

Cacheable resource share usage

80%+ cacheable resources is the most used: 58.3% of React sites. 50% to 79% cacheable resources is 28.8% of React sites.

80%+ cacheable resources 58.3% 50% to 79% cacheable resources 28.8%
80%+ cacheable resources 58.3% 50% to 79% cacheable resources 28.8% Under 20% cacheable resources 9.5% 20% to 49% cacheable resources 3.5%
The State of Web Vitals · October 2026 · React: 9,570 crawled sites · 9,110 with all devices field dataBy Arjen Karel · corewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
3

LCP phase breakdown by share of cacheable subresources

Across the four LCP sub-parts in Chrome's field data, the largest gap between 50% to 79% cacheable resources and under 20% cacheable resources sits in time to first byte (TTFB): 496 ms median for 50% to 79% cacheable resources against 1185 ms for under 20% cacheable resources. Overall median field LCP is 1.4s for 50% to 79% cacheable resources (TTFB 496 ms, load delay 437 ms, load duration 137 ms, render delay 175 ms) versus 2.2s for under 20% cacheable resources.

Median LCP phase breakdown (Chrome field p75) Load delay Median LCP
All React sites 6,740516 ms439 ms439 mslab 439 ms1.4s
Under 20% cacheable resources 6271185 ms384 ms248 ms384 mslab 384 ms2.2s
50% to 79% cacheable resources 1,918496 ms437 ms437 mslab 437 ms1.4s
80%+ cacheable resources 3,965467 ms445 ms445 mslab 445 ms1.3s
20% to 49% cacheable resources 230845 ms464 ms235 ms464 mslab 464 ms2.0s
TTFB Resource load delay Resource load time Element render delay
The State of Web Vitals · October 2026 · React: 9,570 crawled sites · 9,110 with all devices field dataBy Arjen Karel · corewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
4

Cacheable resource share per platform

On Wix, 68% of sites use 80%+ cacheable resources cacheable resource share, and 94% of Wix sites have a good LCP, against 85% of all sites. On WordPress, 46% of sites use 80%+ cacheable resources, and 61% of WordPress sites have a good LCP.

PlatformCacheable resource share on its sitesGood LCP
All React sites 9,570 sites80%+ cacheable resources 58%50% to 79% cacheable resources 29%85%
Wix 5,824 sites80%+ cacheable resources 68%50% to 79% cacheable resources 31%94%
WordPress 2,342 sites80%+ cacheable resources 46%Under 20% cacheable resources 31%50% to 79% cacheable resources 16%61%
80%+ cacheable resources 50% to 79% cacheable resources Under 20% cacheable resources 20% to 49% cacheable resources
The State of Web Vitals · October 2026 · React: 9,570 crawled sites · 9,110 with all devices field dataBy Arjen Karel · corewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
5

Cacheable resource share or the platform

Does the platform explain the cacheable resource share difference?

On Wix, 93% of sites with 50% to 79% cacheable resources cacheable resource share have a good LCP, against 95% of Wix sites with 80%+ cacheable resources. Within Wix, sites with 50% to 79% cacheable resources and 80%+ cacheable resources have a good LCP about equally often. On WordPress, 67% of sites with 50% to 79% cacheable resources cacheable resource share have a good LCP, against 61% of WordPress sites with 80%+ cacheable resources. Within WordPress, sites with 50% to 79% cacheable resources and 80%+ cacheable resources have a good LCP about equally often.

How subresource Cache-Control coverage speeds up repeat visits and CDN edge hits

Cacheable resource share tracks the percentage of page requests carrying valid Cache-Control or Expires headers. Across 5,575 sites (58.3%) with 80%+ cacheable resources and 2,756 sites (28.8%) at 50% to 79%, 88% and 88% pass field LCP (1.3s and 1.4s median). When cacheability falls to 20% to 49% (3.5%), good LCP drops to 70% (1.9s median), and below 20% cacheable (9.5%, 906 sites) good LCP drops to 62% (2.2s median).

The State of Web Vitals · October 2026 · React: 9,570 crawled sites · 9,110 with all devices field dataBy Arjen Karel · corewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
6

Understanding cacheable resource share

Ensure at least 80% of subresources return explicit Cache-Control max-age headers so browsers and CDN edges serve static assets without origin round-trips. Across all audited sites, 58.3% cache 80%+ of resources (88% good LCP) versus 9.5% caching under 20% (62% good LCP).

The State of Web Vitals · October 2026 · React: 9,570 crawled sites · 9,110 with all devices field dataBy Arjen Karel · corewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
Related signals HTML compression → Cache strategy mix → HTTP protocol mix → HTTP protocol → By Arjen Karel · 9,570 crawled React sites (9,110 with all devices Chrome field data, October 2026) · How we measured