Core Web Vitals 2026: How You Compare to the Market
Last updated: 1 August 2026. Based on the latest CrUX and HTTP Archive releases, reviewed quarterly. If you want to know whether your site’s Core Web Vitals score is good or just average, here’s one number to memorise: as of May 2026, only 55.9% of all tracked origins pass all three Core Web Vitals at […]
Last updated: 1 August 2026. Based on the latest CrUX and HTTP Archive releases, reviewed quarterly.
If you want to know whether your site’s Core Web Vitals score is good or just average, here’s one number to memorise: as of May 2026, only 55.9% of all tracked origins pass all three Core Web Vitals at once (DigitalApplied, June 2026, CrUX data). That means if your site passes, you’re ahead of nearly half the web. If it fails, you’re in larger but still crowded company.
That number is the reference point a manager usually lacks. A tool shows a “red” or “green” result, but doesn’t tell you whether red means catastrophe or market-average. This article gives you the benchmarks: global pass rate, the desktop-versus-mobile split, differences between CMS platforms, and which of the three metrics actually sinks sites. With them you can judge your score not in a vacuum but against the competition.
A quick definition first, because without it the benchmarks are empty figures. Core Web Vitals are three metrics measuring real user experience, calculated at the 75th percentile of real sessions. LCP (Largest Contentful Paint) measures how long the main content takes to load; the “good” threshold is 2.5 seconds. INP (Interaction to Next Paint) measures responsiveness to interaction; the threshold is 200 milliseconds. CLS (Cumulative Layout Shift) measures layout instability during load; the threshold is 0.1. To pass the overall assessment you must clear all three at once. A site with excellent INP and CLS but poor LCP still fails.
Global benchmark: where the bar sits
| Metric | What it measures | “Good” threshold | Global pass rate (CrUX, May 2026) |
|---|---|---|---|
| All three at once | Overall assessment | full set | 55.9% |
| LCP | Main content load time | ≤ 2.5 s | 68.6% |
| CLS | Layout stability | ≤ 0.1 | 81.3% |
| INP | Responsiveness to interaction | ≤ 200 ms | 86.6% |
Source: DigitalApplied, June 2026, from the May 2026 CrUX release (published 9 June 2026, 18,445,974 tracked origins).
One practical conclusion follows from this table: if you fail Core Web Vitals, it’s almost certainly because of LCP. The overwhelming majority of sites pass INP and CLS (86.6% and 81.3% respectively), and only 68.6% pass LCP. Loading, not responsiveness or layout shift, is where sites lose the overall pass.
Desktop versus mobile: mobile is harder
The bar isn’t the same across devices. The global mobile pass rate is around 48%, desktop around 56% (DigitalApplied, June 2026). That difference matters, because Google indexes mobile-first, so it’s your mobile score that decides your ranking, not desktop.
On mobile the bottleneck is even sharper: only about 62% of pages achieve a good LCP, versus 77% for INP and 81% for CLS (EGGKNITE, HTTP Archive Web Almanac 2025 data). The median failing site loses on the fundamentals: slow server responses, oversized hero images and render-blocking resources. These are exactly the problems that platform architecture either solves by default or makes chronic.
It’s also worth seeing the trend, because it says improvement is possible. Mobile pass rates have climbed steadily: 32% in 2021, 36% in 2023, 44% in 2024, 48% in 2025 (EGGKNITE, 2026). That’s real progress, though it still means the majority of the mobile web fails the assessment Google uses to define a good page experience.
CMS platform swings the odds by tens of points
This is the most overlooked yet most practical benchmark for a manager. Your platform choice shifts your odds of passing by tens of percentage points. In HTTP Archive data from November 2025, Duda passed at 84.87% while WordPress sat at 46.28%, a gap of about 38 points (DigitalApplied, June 2026).
An important nuance, so you don’t draw the too-simple conclusion that “WordPress is bad”: WordPress’s weak point is loading, not responsiveness. Its INP passes at a strong 85.89% (DigitalApplied, June 2026). This means WordPress’s problem is fixable without changing platform: it sits in LCP, that is hosting, images and configuration, not in the interaction engine itself.
| Platform | Pass rate all three CWV | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Duda | ~84.87% | Leader among major CMS platforms |
| WordPress | ~46.28% | Last among major platforms, weak point is LCP, not INP |
Source: DigitalApplied, June 2026 and EGGKNITE, 2026, HTTP Archive data, November 2025. Shopify and Squarespace rank high, Squarespace especially strong on INP.
Why LCP is the structural bottleneck
Since LCP fails the most sites, it’s worth understanding why. CLS has the highest pass rate because it’s usually a simple fix: assigning dimensions to images and reserving space for dynamic content eliminates most layout shifts. INP improved sharply after it replaced the old FID metric in March 2024 and drew developer attention. LCP is different: it depends on infrastructure decisions that compound on each other, CDN configuration, server-side rendering, hosting and network (DigitalApplied, February 2026). Across the whole industry LCP improved only a few points between 2023 and 2025, while CLS and INP jumped far more. The headline 55.9% is constrained precisely by LCP.
For a manager that’s a concrete priority signal. If you have to pass one metric first, make it LCP, because it most often blocks the overall assessment and requires the deepest technical changes. INP and CLS fixes are usually cheaper and faster.
How to check your own score
Before comparing yourself to the benchmark, you need your own number. There are two kinds of data:
- Field data, from CrUX. These are real measurements from Chrome users, and they’re what affects ranking. You’ll find them in Google Search Console (the Core Web Vitals report) and in PageSpeed Insights, shown as data from the last 28 days. This is the number you compare against this article’s benchmark.
- Lab data, from Lighthouse. This is measurement under controlled conditions, useful for diagnosing and debugging a specific page, but it doesn’t reflect the real device mix of your users. Good for finding a cause, bad for market comparisons.
For deeper diagnosis, that is finding the specific element hurting LCP on a product page, browser developer tools help. How to use Chrome DevTools for SEO, including performance analysis, Insightland breaks down in a separate guide.
From score to decision: how to read your own number
| Your score (all three passing, mobile) | How you compare | Priority |
|---|---|---|
| Above 56% | Above market median, especially for mobile | Maintain, monitor after every deploy |
| Around 48% | Near the global mobile average | Improvement worthwhile, start with LCP |
| Below 46% | Below even WordPress, real technical debt | Priority, diagnose LCP on key templates |
| Pass INP and CLS, fail LCP | Typical failing-site profile | Focus budget on LCP: hosting, images, rendering |
FAQ
What’s a good Core Web Vitals score?
A good score passes all three metrics at the 75th percentile: LCP up to 2.5 s, INP up to 200 ms, CLS up to 0.1. As a competitive benchmark, passing all three puts you ahead of nearly half the web, since 55.9% of origins pass globally (CrUX, May 2026).
Which metric fails sites most often?
LCP. Globally 68.6% of pages pass it, versus 81.3% for CLS and 86.6% for INP. On mobile the gap is even wider. If you fail the overall assessment, it’s almost certainly because of loading, not responsiveness or layout shift.
Does WordPress have weak Core Web Vitals?
WordPress ranks lowest among major platforms (around 46.28% pass rate, November 2025), but the problem is in LCP, not INP, which passes at a strong 85.89%. This means the score can be improved without changing platform: through hosting, image optimisation and configuration.
Desktop or mobile, which score counts?
Mobile. Google indexes mobile-first, so your mobile score decides your ranking. Mobile is also harder: the global pass rate is around 48% on mobile versus 56% on desktop.
Where do I check my score?
In Google Search Console (Core Web Vitals report) and in PageSpeed Insights, in the CrUX field-data section from the last 28 days. That’s real user data and it’s what affects ranking. Lighthouse gives lab data, good for diagnosis but not market comparison.
Do Core Web Vitals affect sales, not just ranking?
Yes, though the effect size varies by site. A good LCP correlates with higher revenue per visitor, and passing all three metrics with lower bounce rates. It’s a landing-page quality factor, not only a ranking signal.
A Core Web Vitals score only makes sense against the market. The headline 55.9% global pass rate, 48% on mobile, and the 38-point gap between CMS platforms are the numbers that turn an abstract “red” into a concrete position relative to the competition. If you fail, you now know it’s most likely LCP and that it’s fixable. If you pass, you know you’re ahead of half the web and worth keeping there.
Check your field score in Search Console and compare it against this article’s benchmarks. If it turns out you have real technical debt and want to know which templates and elements drag the score down, and in what order to fix them, a technical SEO audit will show you.
CrUX and HTTP Archive data verified as of 1 August 2026 against DigitalApplied and EGGKNITE (HTTP Archive Web Almanac). CrUX updates monthly; check the latest release at the primary source before use.
