At a glance the headline numbers for Analytics on page
Analytics scripts present on the page.
50.8% of sites run Google Analytics.
The analytics on page mix who uses what, and how fast each group loads
Analytics on page. On the fleet: 50.8% google analytics 4, 38.1% universal analytics, 6.5% matomo. 53.7% of sites use at least one google_analytics_4.
Why this matters for the Core Web Vitals, and where to start fixing it
Analytics is script that exists for you, not for the visitor. It still runs on their main thread: listening to events, batching, sending beacons between interactions. Heavy analytics shows up as input delay, the wait before a click handler even starts.
One analytics tool is a cost. The second one is usually a question nobody asked. Count the tools, then ask who actually reads each report. Most stacks shrink fast under that question.
How does this affect the Core Web Vitals?
The choice barely moves the INP: 97% pass at best, 93% at worst. This signal does not separate passing sites from failing ones.
The split is bigger on LCP. With Plausible, 92% of sites pass it. With Universal analytics, 80% do.
Chrome field data from 94,910 sites, representing millions of real page loads. How we measured.