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.

96.0%
Best: htmx
good LCP
85.2%
Most used: jQuery
good LCP
75.2%
Worst: Angular
good LCP

htmx passes LCP most often of any framework. 96.0% of its sites pass. Angular passes least at 75.2%. jQuery (the most-used framework) sits at 85.2%. The gap is 21 percentage points.

The State of Web Vitals · October 2026 · 212,308 crawled sites · desktop field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
2

The ranking sorted by LCP at p75, fastest first

# Framework LCP p75 Passing Sites
1 htmx 1.7s 96.0%
305
2 Alpine.js 1.7s 92.3%
2,689
3 Svelte 1.9s 88.1%
471
4 Next.js 2.0s 86.1%
1,840
5 jQuery 2.0s 85.2%
144,465
6 Remix 2.0s 86.7%
53
7 Vue 2.2s 82.8%
12,199
8 Gatsby 2.3s 82.9%
218
9 React 2.3s 79.0%
9,658
10 Nuxt 2.4s 77.6%
1,311
11 Angular 2.5s 75.2%
3,396
The State of Web Vitals · October 2026 · 212,308 crawled sites · desktop field datacorewebvitals.io/state-of-cwv
3

Passing LCP per framework which group passes the LCP most often

FrameworkSitesPassing LCPp75
htmx 0.1% 305 96% 1.7s
Alpine.js 1.3% 2,689 92% 1.7s
Svelte 0.2% 471 88% 1.9s
Remix 0% 53 87% 2.0s
Next.js 0.9% 1,840 86% 2.0s
jQuery 69.6% 144,465 85% 2.0s
Gatsby 0.1% 218 83% 2.3s
Vue 5.9% 12,199 83% 2.2s
React 4.7% 9,658 79% 2.3s
Nuxt 0.6% 1,311 78% 2.4s
Angular 1.6% 3,396 75% 2.5s
Good Needs Improvement Poor Sorted best-passing first · median colored by its own rating · pass = good LCP (2.5s at p75) · one value per site

96% of htmx sites pass LCP. Angular trails 21 points behind. computed

The State of Web Vitals · October 2026 · 212,308 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
9978ms
720.12
801.6s
611.1s
React 4.7%
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
95111ms
660.15
861.4s
71874ms
Nuxt 0.6%
782.4s
9798ms
640.16
781.7s
641.0s
Svelte 0.2%
881.9s
9886ms
790.07
871.3s
75807ms
htmx 0.1%
961.7s
10065ms
780.07
911.3s
621.1s
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.

htmx leads on LCP: 96% of its sites pass. Angular trails at 75%. computed

The State of Web Vitals · October 2026 · 212,308 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, htmx reaches a good LCP on 96.0% of sites; Angular on 75.2%.

Related signals CDN (7) → CMS (12) → 212,308 crawled sites with Chrome field data, representing millions of real page loads · How we measured