In the lab, the typical site paints its main content after 556ms

LCP INP CLS

At a glance the headline numbers for Lab paint timeline

Lab paint timeline on a cold crawl: TTFB, FCP, LCP in ms - setup-specific, not field data.

366ms

lab FCP

on the typical page

556ms

lab LCP

on the typical page

1.4s

1 in 4 pages exceed this

lab LCP

183,720

sites measured

all-device field data

In the lab, the typical site paints its main content after 556ms.

The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 sites · all devices field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv

Distribution & median CLS site count and median CLS at each level of lab paint timeline — fcp

0.00 0.04 0.08 0.11 0.15

0.1

0 30210 60420

0–249 250–499 500–749 750–999 1000–1249 1250–1499 1500–1749 1750+

Good (≤0.1) Needs improvement Poor (>0.25) Site count

The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 sites · all devices field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv

Passing CLS by lab paint timeline — fcp which level passes the CLS most often

Lab paint timeline — fcpSitesPassing CLSCLS

0–249 60,420 90% 0.00

250–499 52,470 87% 0.00

500–749 23,166 87% 0.00

750–999 13,077 87% 0.00

1000–1249 8,650 86% 0.00

1250–1499 5,799 87% 0.00

1500–1749 4,011 86% 0.01

1750+ 16,127 85% 0.01

Good Needs Improvement Poor Faded rows: under 100 sites

Lab paint timeline — fcp 366ms. p75 776ms. p99 10.2s. At the low end (0–249ms): CLS 0.00. At the high end (1750+ms): CLS 0.01. computed

The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 sites · all devices field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv

Distribution & median CLS site count and median CLS at each level of lab paint timeline — lcp

0.00 0.04 0.08 0.11 0.15

0.1

0 40835 81670

0–499 500–999 1000–1499 1500–1999 2000–2499 2500–2999 3000–3499 3500–3999 4000–4499 4500+

Good (≤0.1) Needs improvement Poor (>0.25) Site count

The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 sites · all devices field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv

Passing CLS by lab paint timeline — lcp which level passes the CLS most often

Lab paint timeline — lcpSitesPassing CLSCLS

0–499 81,670 90% 0.00

500–999 37,049 87% 0.00

1000–1499 16,429 86% 0.01

1500–1999 8,795 84% 0.01

2000–2499 5,047 85% 0.01

2500–2999 3,067 83% 0.01

3000–3499 2,832 84% 0.01

3500–3999 3,214 86% 0.00

4000–4499 3,290 86% 0.01

4500+ 14,786 84% 0.01

Good Needs Improvement Poor Faded rows: under 100 sites

Lab paint timeline — lcp 556ms. p75 1.4s. p99 19.3s. At the low end (0–499ms): CLS 0.00. At the high end (4500+ms): CLS 0.01. computed

The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 sites · all devices field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv

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

These are lab numbers from our crawler: one cold load, one machine, one network profile. They are not what your visitors feel. That is what the field data on the rest of this site measures. What the lab gives you is a controlled comparison: identical conditions for every site, so a difference between two sites is a real difference between the pages.

Read the gaps. Lab LCP far worse than field LCP usually means caching and repeat visits carry the field numbers. The reverse usually means the crawler's connection is kinder than your visitors' phones.

How does this affect the Core Web Vitals?

Lab paint timeline correlates with the CLS. Lab LCP separates passing sites from failing sites more than lab FCP does. Where the lab LCP is low, 90% of sites pass the CLS. Where it is high, 84% do. The decline is gradual. There is no point where sites suddenly start failing.

Go fix it How we measured → Chrome DevTools network settings for CWV testing →

Related signals Total Blocking Time (lab) → Main-thread CPU (lab) → Document lifecycle (lab) → Chrome field data from 189,915 sites, representing millions of real page loads · How we measured