Frameworks performance

How JavaScript frameworks score across LCP, INP and CLS.

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 Frameworks performance

How JavaScript frameworks score across LCP, INP and CLS.

91.7%
Best: React
good CLS
88.3%
Most used: jQuery
good CLS
56.4%
Worst: Angular
good CLS

React passes CLS most often of any framework. 91.7% of its sites pass. Angular passes least at 56.4%. jQuery (the most-used framework) sits at 88.3%. The gap is 35 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 CLS at p75, fastest first

# Framework CLS p75 Passing Sites
1 React 0.01 91.7%
8,487
2 htmx 0.03 87.5%
268
3 Alpine.js 0.03 90.3%
2,412
4 jQuery 0.04 88.3%
129,597
5 Svelte 0.05 85.3%
416
6 Vue 0.06 83.1%
10,740
7 Nuxt 0.14 68.9%
1,162
8 Next.js 0.17 65.9%
1,624
9 Gatsby 0.20 64.2%
197
10 Angular 0.24 56.4%
3,036
The State of Web Vitals · Q2 2026 · 189,915 sites · all devices field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
3

Passing CLS per framework which group passes the CLS most often

FrameworkSitesPassing CLSp75
React 4.5% 8,487 92% 0.01
Alpine.js 1.3% 2,412 90% 0.03
jQuery 68.2% 129,597 88% 0.04
htmx 0.1% 268 87% 0.03
Svelte 0.2% 416 85% 0.05
Vue 5.6% 10,740 83% 0.06
Remix 0% 49 71% 0.11
Nuxt 0.6% 1,162 69% 0.14
Next.js 0.9% 1,624 66% 0.17
Gatsby 0.1% 197 64% 0.20
Angular 1.6% 3,036 56% 0.24
Good Needs Improvement Poor Sorted best-passing first · median colored by its own rating · pass = good CLS (0.1 at p75) · one value per site

92% of React sites pass CLS. Angular trails 36 points behind, leaving 44% 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
Vue 5.6%
762.4s
95127ms
830.06
711.9s
521.4s
Alpine.js 1.3%
891.9s
97115ms
900.03
821.6s
571.1s
Next.js 0.9%
852.1s
67236ms
660.17
841.5s
69884ms
Angular 1.6%
662.9s
88161ms
560.24
702.0s
76771ms
Svelte 0.2%
832.1s
93137ms
850.05
811.6s
71886ms
Remix 0%
842.2s
89146ms
710.11
821.6s
561.1s
React 4.5%
852.0s
95103ms
920.01
811.5s
661.1s
jQuery 68.2%
812.2s
97104ms
880.04
731.9s
511.4s
Nuxt 0.6%
732.6s
89155ms
690.14
731.9s
631.0s
Gatsby 0.1%
722.5s
82180ms
640.20
941.4s
78749ms
htmx 0.1%
911.9s
99108ms
870.03
841.5s
581.1s
60%95%+ passing Cell: pass rate, small number = p75 · faded rows: under 100 sites

One row per framework, 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.

React leads on CLS: 92% of its sites pass. Angular trails at 56%. 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

A JavaScript framework shapes how much code runs in the browser to put your page on the screen. Some render on the server and ship light; others send a large bundle and rebuild the page on the client, which lands on the main thread and shows up in INP. The framework is not destiny, but its defaults and how you use them decide how much JavaScript the visitor has to pay for.

Start by looking at what ships to the browser and when it runs. Render on the server where you can, split the bundle so each page only loads what it needs, and defer the work that is not required for the first interaction. Framework JavaScript runs on the main thread, so the less of it the browser has to execute, the better INP gets.

How does your framework affect Core Web Vitals?

Among the JavaScript frameworks, React reaches a good CLS on 91.7% of sites; Angular on 56.4%.

Related signals CDN (7) → CMS (12) → Chrome field data from 189,915 sites, representing millions of real page loads · How we measured