Third-party provider categories on WordPress and the Core Web Vitals
Frameworks (96.5%), CDNs (57.7%), analytics (60.9%), tag managers (55.1%), font services (58.8%), video embeds (43.5%), and ad networks (8.1%) across 63,295 sites.
1.1% of WordPress sites use cdp third-party technology categories, and 78% of those sites pass all three Core Web Vitals, against 63% of all WordPress sites.
1.1% of WordPress sites use cdp third-party technology categories, and 86% of those sites have a good LCP, against 70% of all WordPress sites.
1.1% of WordPress sites use cdp third-party technology categories, and 99% of those sites have a good INP, against 98% of all WordPress sites.
1.1% of WordPress sites use cdp third-party technology categories, and 89% of those sites have a good CLS, against 89% of all WordPress sites.
Core Web Vitals pass rate
Sites with cdp third-party technology categories pass all three Core Web Vitals most often: 78%, against 63% of all WordPress sites. The biggest gap is LCP, 86% against 70%.
Sites with cdp third-party technology categories have a good LCP most often: 86%, against 70% of all WordPress sites. Sites with ecommerce runtime third-party categories have it least often, at 58%.
Sites with cdp third-party technology categories have a good INP most often: 99%, against 98% of all WordPress sites. Sites with ad network third-party categories have it least often, at 94%.
Sites with cdp third-party technology categories have a good CLS most often: 89%, against 89% of all WordPress sites. Sites with push notifications third-party categories have it least often, at 75%.
Third-party technology categories usage
CMS is the most used: 99.9% of WordPress sites. Cdp is 1.1% of WordPress sites.
How third-party categories affect the four LCP phases
Across the four LCP sub-parts in Chrome's field data, the largest gap between cdp and ecommerce runtime sits in time to first byte (TTFB): 722 ms median for cdp against 1478 ms for ecommerce runtime. Overall median field LCP is 1.5s for cdp (TTFB 722 ms, load delay 285 ms, load duration 188 ms, render delay 169 ms) versus 2.3s for ecommerce runtime.
Across the four LCP sub-parts in Chrome's field data, the largest gap between cdp and ecommerce runtime sits in time to first byte (TTFB): 722 ms median for cdp against 1478 ms for ecommerce runtime. Overall median field LCP is 1.5s for cdp (TTFB 722 ms, load delay 285 ms, load duration 188 ms, render delay 169 ms) versus 2.3s for ecommerce runtime.
Across the four LCP sub-parts in Chrome's field data, the largest gap between cdp and ecommerce runtime sits in time to first byte (TTFB): 722 ms median for cdp against 1478 ms for ecommerce runtime. Overall median field LCP is 1.5s for cdp (TTFB 722 ms, load delay 285 ms, load duration 188 ms, render delay 169 ms) versus 2.3s for ecommerce runtime.
Across the four LCP sub-parts in Chrome's field data, the largest gap between cdp and ecommerce runtime sits in time to first byte (TTFB): 722 ms median for cdp against 1478 ms for ecommerce runtime. Overall median field LCP is 1.5s for cdp (TTFB 722 ms, load delay 285 ms, load duration 188 ms, render delay 169 ms) versus 2.3s for ecommerce runtime.
Third-party technology categories per framework
On jQuery, 100% of sites use framework third-party technology categories, and 62% of jQuery sites pass all three Core Web Vitals, against 63% of all sites. On Vue, 100% of sites use framework, and 61% of Vue sites pass all three.
On jQuery, 100% of sites use framework third-party technology categories, and 69% of jQuery sites have a good LCP, against 70% of all sites. On Vue, 100% of sites use framework, and 68% of Vue sites have a good LCP.
On jQuery, 100% of sites use framework third-party technology categories, and 98% of jQuery sites have a good INP, against 98% of all sites. On Vue, 100% of sites use framework, and 97% of Vue sites have a good INP.
On jQuery, 100% of sites use framework third-party technology categories, and 89% of jQuery sites have a good CLS, against 89% of all sites. On Vue, 100% of sites use framework, and 89% of Vue sites have a good CLS.
Third-party technology categories or the framework
Does the framework explain the third-party technology categories difference?
On jQuery, 63% of sites with cdp third-party technology categories pass all three Core Web Vitals, against 62% of jQuery sites with CMS. Within jQuery, sites with cdp and CMS pass all three about equally often. On Vue, 61% of sites with CMS third-party technology categories pass all three Core Web Vitals, against 61% of Vue sites with framework. Within Vue, sites with CMS and framework pass all three about equally often.
On jQuery, 73% of sites with cdp third-party technology categories have a good LCP, against 69% of jQuery sites with CMS. Within jQuery, sites with cdp and CMS have a good LCP about equally often. On Vue, 68% of sites with CMS third-party technology categories have a good LCP, against 68% of Vue sites with framework. Within Vue, sites with CMS and framework have a good LCP about equally often.
On jQuery, 99% of sites with cdp third-party technology categories have a good INP, against 98% of jQuery sites with CMS. Within jQuery, sites with cdp and CMS have a good INP about equally often. On Vue, 97% of sites with CMS third-party technology categories have a good INP, against 97% of Vue sites with framework. Within Vue, sites with CMS and framework have a good INP about equally often.
On jQuery, 83% of sites with cdp third-party technology categories have a good CLS, against 89% of jQuery sites with CMS. Within jQuery, sites with cdp have a good CLS less often. On Vue, 89% of sites with CMS third-party technology categories have a good CLS, against 89% of Vue sites with framework. Within Vue, sites with CMS and framework have a good CLS about equally often.
By Arjen Karel · 63,295 crawled WordPress sites (60,855 with all devices Chrome field data, October 2026). How we measured.