CMS performance

How the most-used CMS platforms perform on real-user Core Web Vitals data.

Field data PhoneDesktopAll Scope All sites Q2 2026 edition · All devices field outcomes
Metric LCP INP CLS FCP TTFB
1

At a glance the headline numbers for CMS performance

How the most-used CMS platforms perform on real-user Core Web Vitals data.

95.3%
Best: Shopify
good FCP
85.8%
Typical CMS
good FCP
59.3%
Worst: WordPress
good FCP

Shopify passes FCP most often of any CMS. 95.3% of its sites pass. WordPress (the most-used CMS) passes least at 59.3%. The gap is 36 percentage points.

The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 sites · all devices field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
2

The ranking sorted by FCP at p75, fastest first

# CMS FCP p75 Passing Sites
1 Wix 1.1s 93.2%
5,217
2 Shopify 1.1s 95.3%
7,625
3 TYPO3 1.3s 89.0%
95
4 Drupal 1.5s 86.3%
2,990
5 Squarespace 1.5s 85.8%
2,028
6 Joomla 1.7s 81.1%
2,325
7 Adobe Commerce 2.0s 68.4%
989
8 WordPress 2.3s 59.3%
59,040
The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 sites · all devices field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
3

Passing FCP per CMS which group passes the FCP most often

CMSSitesPassing FCPp75
Ghost 0% 37 100% 1.1s
Hubspot cms 0% 5 100% 1.3s
Shopify 4% 7,625 95% 1.1s
Webflow 0% 15 93% 1.2s
Wix 2.7% 5,217 93% 1.1s
TYPO3 0% 95 89% 1.3s
Drupal 1.6% 2,990 86% 1.5s
Squarespace 1.1% 2,028 86% 1.5s
Joomla 1.2% 2,325 81% 1.7s
Adobe Commerce 0.5% 989 68% 2.0s
Storyblok 0% 11 64% 2.0s
WordPress 31.1% 59,040 59% 2.3s
Good Needs Improvement Poor Sorted best-passing first · median colored by its own rating · pass = good FCP (1.8s at p75) · one value per site

95% of Shopify sites pass FCP. WordPress trails 36 points behind, leaving 41% of its sites failing. computed

The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 sites · all devices field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
4

All five vitals at once the whole category without toggling - cell is the pass rate, small number the p75

LCP
INP
CLS
FCP
TTFB
Wix 2.7%
951.6s
9788ms
980.00
931.1s
81666ms
Shopify 4%
961.7s
96123ms
940.02
951.1s
96516ms
Storyblok 0%
642.8s
78146ms
640.31
642.0s
301.4s
TYPO3 0%
941.5s
87101ms
920.02
891.3s
71878ms
Webflow 0%
1001.7s
10084ms
930.03
931.2s
71839ms
WordPress 31.1%
702.7s
98104ms
890.03
592.3s
311.8s
Drupal 1.6%
921.7s
97102ms
880.04
861.5s
68929ms
Joomla 1.2%
902.0s
9596ms
920.01
811.7s
551.1s
Adobe Commerce 0.5%
782.4s
98118ms
730.11
682.0s
311.6s
Squarespace 1.1%
892.1s
10092ms
900.04
861.5s
96541ms
Ghost 0%
1001.4s
10087ms
920.06
1001.1s
89581ms
Hubspot cms 0%
1001.5s
100101ms
800.03
1001.3s
80654ms
60%95%+ passing Cell: pass rate, small number = p75 · faded rows: under 100 sites

One row per CMS, one column per vital - the cell is the share of sites passing, the small number the p75. No toggling needed to see where the category actually differs.

Shopify leads on FCP: 95% of its sites pass. WordPress trails at 59%. computed

The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 sites · all devices field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
5

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

The CMS decides a lot about your Core Web Vitals before you write a line of your own code. It controls the HTML that ships, the scripts and styles that load by default, and how images are handled. Two sites on the same platform can score very differently depending on the theme and plugins, but the platform sets the starting point and the ceiling for how much you can tune.

Start with what the platform loads that you do not need. Strip the default scripts and styles that come with themes and plugins, defer the JavaScript that is not needed for the first paint, and make sure images go out in modern formats at the right size. On script-heavy platforms the biggest wins are usually in cutting and deferring what loads on every page.

How does your CMS affect Core Web Vitals?

Among the most-used CMS platforms, Wix reaches a good FCP on 93.2% of sites; WordPress on 59.3%.

Related signals CDN (7) → Frameworks (11) → Chrome field data from 189,915 sites, representing millions of real page loads · How we measured