Frameworks performance

How JavaScript frameworks score across LCP, INP and CLS.

Field data PhoneDesktopAll Scope All sites October 2026 edition · Desktop 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.

92.9%
Best: Gatsby
good FCP
79.8%
Most used: jQuery
good FCP
76.5%
Worst: React
good FCP

Gatsby passes FCP most often of any framework. 92.9% of its sites pass. React passes least at 76.5%. jQuery (the most-used framework) sits at 79.8%. The gap is 16 percentage points.

The State of Web Vitals · October 2026 · 210,902 crawled sites · desktop field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
2

The ranking sorted by FCP at p75, fastest first

# Framework FCP p75 Passing Sites
1 Gatsby 1.0s 92.9%
218
2 Svelte 1.3s 86.9%
467
3 htmx 1.4s 90.9%
301
4 Remix 1.4s 87.1%
53
5 Alpine.js 1.4s 87.4%
2,671
6 Next.js 1.4s 85.4%
1,832
7 Vue 1.6s 80.2%
12,115
8 jQuery 1.6s 79.8%
143,509
9 Angular 1.6s 79.8%
3,377
10 Nuxt 1.7s 77.7%
1,309
11 React 1.7s 76.5%
9,570
The State of Web Vitals · October 2026 · 210,902 crawled sites · desktop field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
3

Passing FCP per framework which group passes the FCP most often

FrameworkSitesPassing FCPp75
Gatsby 0.1% 218 93% 1.0s
htmx 0.1% 301 91% 1.4s
Alpine.js 1.3% 2,671 87% 1.4s
Remix 0% 53 87% 1.4s
Svelte 0.2% 467 87% 1.3s
Next.js 0.9% 1,832 85% 1.4s
Vue 5.9% 12,115 80% 1.6s
jQuery 69.6% 143,509 80% 1.6s
Angular 1.6% 3,377 80% 1.6s
Nuxt 0.6% 1,309 78% 1.7s
React 4.6% 9,570 77% 1.7s
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

93% of Gatsby sites pass FCP. React trails 16 points behind. computed

The State of Web Vitals · October 2026 · 210,902 crawled sites · desktop 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
jQuery 69.6%
852.0s
9962ms
780.09
801.6s
571.2s
Vue 5.9%
832.2s
9977ms
720.12
801.6s
611.1s
React 4.6%
792.3s
9966ms
800.08
771.7s
531.5s
Angular 1.6%
752.5s
96106ms
490.27
801.6s
82643ms
Alpine.js 1.3%
921.7s
9966ms
800.08
871.4s
611.1s
Next.js 0.9%
862.0s
95110ms
660.15
851.4s
71871ms
Nuxt 0.6%
782.4s
9798ms
640.16
781.7s
641.0s
Svelte 0.2%
881.9s
9886ms
780.08
871.3s
74815ms
htmx 0.1%
961.7s
10065ms
790.07
911.4s
631.1s
Gatsby 0.1%
832.3s
86130ms
690.13
931.0s
88562ms
Remix 0%
872.0s
100100ms
730.11
871.4s
611.0s
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.

Gatsby leads on FCP: 93% of its sites pass. React trails at 77%. computed

The State of Web Vitals · October 2026 · 210,902 crawled sites · desktop 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, Gatsby reaches a good FCP on 92.9% of sites; React on 76.5%.

Related signals CDN (7) → CMS (12) → 210,902 crawled sites with Chrome field data, representing millions of real page loads · How we measured