ETag present

Whether responses carry ETag validators.

Field data PhoneDesktopAll Scope All sites Q1 2026 edition · Phone field outcomes
Metric LCP INP CLS
1

At a glance the headline numbers for ETag present

Whether responses carry ETag validators.

87.6%
of sites have it
83,122 of 94,910
1.6s
median LCP with it
1.5s
median LCP without
94,910
sites measured
phone field data

87.6% of sites serve ETag validators.

The State of Web Vitals · Q1 2026 · 94,910 sites · phone field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
2

ETag present sites that have it vs sites that don't

ETag present
87.6%

87.6% of sites send ETag headers (83,122 of 94,910). With send: LCP 1.6s, 81.7% pass. Without: LCP 1.5s, 83.5% pass. Correlates with +106ms LCP and −1.8 pp pass rate. computed

The State of Web Vitals · Q1 2026 · 94,910 sites · phone field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
3

Why this matters for the Core Web Vitals, and where to start fixing it

An ETag is a validator. When a cached file expires, the browser can ask the server whether it changed and get a tiny 304 Not Modified back instead of the whole file. Without a validator, an expired file is downloaded again in full.

Validators matter most for the in-between caching strategies: short TTLs with frequent revisits. For hashed, immutable assets they are redundant because the file never changes under its name. One thing to watch on multi-server setups: default ETags can differ per server, and a mismatched ETag silently turns every revalidation into a full download.

How does this affect the Core Web Vitals?

Having it makes no measurable difference to the LCP: 82% pass with it, 84% without.

Related signals Last-Modified present → Uncompressed text responses → Main CDN → HTTP protocol → Chrome field data from 94,910 sites, representing millions of real page loads · How we measured