Core Web Vitals Statistics: (2025 Trends and Usage Data)

The top core web vitals stats for 2025 are that sites that pass CWV tests rank 28% higher on Google’s SERPs, 75% of mobile sites fail at least one Core Web Vital metric, and Core Web Vitals will remain a top priority for SEO professionals in 2025.

These metrics significantly impact SEO rankings, user retention, and website conversion rates. 

Understanding the latest Core Web Vitals statistics helps businesses, marketers, and web developers optimize their websites for better performance and search rankings. 

This article explores 140+ best core web vitals trends for 2025 and beyond.

Overall Core Web Vitals Performance Stats in 2025

1. 56.3% of websites met all Core Web Vitals thresholds in 2024, up from 40% in 2022 (Source: HTTP Archive).
2. 75% of mobile sites fail to pass all CWV assessments, compared to 45% of desktop sites (Source: Google Chrome UX Report).
3. 42% of the top 1,000 websites failed at least one CWV metric in 2024 (Source: Web.dev).
4. Largest Contentful Paint (LCP) scores improved by 18% on average due to better caching and CDN usage (Source: Google PageSpeed Insights).
5. First Input Delay (FID) was replaced by Interaction to Next Paint (INP) in March 2024 as a more effective interactivity metric (Source: Google Search Central).
6. 60% of e-commerce websites failed CWV assessments, leading to lower SEO rankings (Source: SEMrush).
7. Sites in the technology industry have the highest CWV pass rate (65%), while news and media sites have the lowest (39%) (Source: HTTP Archive).
8. Sites that pass CWV tests rank 28% higher on Google’s SERPs than those that fail (Source: Moz).
9. An improvement of 0.2s in LCP leads to a 15% increase in conversion rates (Source: Google Web Performance Report).
10. 88% of web performance experts believe CWV will become even more critical in SEO rankings by 2025 (Source: Search Engine Journal).
11. Websites loading in under 2.5 seconds are 50% more likely to retain visitors (Source: Google UX Research).
12. AMP pages have a 40% higher chance of passing CWV tests than non-AMP pages (Source: Web.dev).
13. Mobile users experience 32% worse CWV scores compared to desktop users due to network conditions (Source: Google Lighthouse Report).
14. Google introduced automated CWV testing in Search Console, leading to a 25% increase in site optimizations (Source: Google Search Central).
15. Websites failing CWV assessments see a 20% drop in organic traffic compared to those passing all metrics (Source: Ahrefs).

Largest Contentful Paint (LCP) Stats

1. 45% of websites failed LCP thresholds in 2024 (Source: WebPageTest).
2. LCP should occur within 2.5 seconds for a good user experience (Source: Google CWV Guidelines).
3. E-commerce sites with an LCP below 2.5s experience a 12% higher conversion rate (Source: Google Marketing Platform).
4. Sites using a CDN improve LCP by 20-30% on average (Source: Cloudflare).
5. 80% of slow LCP scores are due to unoptimized images and large background videos (Source: Lighthouse Report).
6. Using lazy loading improves LCP by 18% on average (Source: Web.dev).
7. Google penalizes websites with an LCP above 4 seconds, causing a ranking drop of 15-20% (Source: Search Engine Land).
8. Optimized fonts and compressed images reduce LCP by up to 25% (Source: Google Performance Insights).
9. 70% of mobile sites with a poor LCP score are affected by slow server response times (Source: Chrome UX Report).
10. Reducing JavaScript execution time improves LCP by up to 30% (Source: GTmetrix).
11. Websites using next-gen image formats (WebP, AVIF) improve LCP scores by 22% (Source: Google Dev Blog).
12. An LCP above 3 seconds leads to a 32% higher bounce rate (Source: Think with Google).
13. Optimizing hero images alone improves LCP scores by 15% (Source: HTTP Archive).
14. Sites that preload key images improve LCP by 10-15% (Source: Smashing Magazine).
15. Google Lighthouse recommends reducing render-blocking resources to improve LCP by 20% (Source: Lighthouse Report).

Interaction to Next Paint (INP) Stats

1. INP replaced First Input Delay (FID) as a Core Web Vital in March 2024 (Source: Google Search Central).
2. 47% of sites fail INP thresholds, making it the most challenging metric (Source: Web.dev).
3. An INP score under 200ms is considered good, while above 500ms is poor (Source: Google CWV Documentation).
4. INP failures are most common on JavaScript-heavy sites (Source: HTTP Archive).
5. Websites with poor INP scores see a 25% decrease in engagement rates (Source: Google UX Research).
6. Reducing third-party scripts improves INP by 30% (Source: Lighthouse Report).
7. Sites using React or Angular experience 20% worse INP scores (Source: Chrome Dev Summit).
8. Reducing main thread blocking time enhances INP by 40% (Source: Google Web Performance Report).
9. Websites that optimize event listeners improve INP by 15% (Source: Smashing Magazine).
10. CDNs and edge computing reduce INP delays by up to 22% (Source: Cloudflare).
11. Mobile sites tend to have 35% worse INP scores compared to desktop sites (Source: Chrome UX Report).
12. Optimizing JavaScript bundle size improves INP by 25% (Source: GTmetrix).
13. Sites that defer non-essential scripts improve INP by 20% (Source: Google Developers Blog).
14. INP-friendly sites see a 10-15% boost in page session times (Source: Ahrefs).
15. Reducing excessive DOM elements improves INP by 18% (Source: Web.dev).

Cumulative Layout Shift (CLS) Stats

1. 39% of websites fail the CLS threshold of 0.1, affecting user experience (Source: HTTP Archive).
2. Poor CLS scores lead to a 15% decrease in conversion rates for e-commerce sites (Source: Google Web Performance Report).
3. Ad-heavy websites have an average CLS score of 0.3, exceeding Google’s recommended limit (Source: Chrome UX Report).
4. Using fixed dimensions for images and ads reduces CLS by 25% (Source: Google Developers Blog).
5. Over 70% of layout shifts occur within the first 500ms of page load (Source: Web.dev).
6. Mobile websites experience 20% worse CLS scores compared to desktop sites (Source: Google Lighthouse Report).
7. Websites with unstable CLS see 30% higher bounce rates (Source: Think with Google).
8. Lazy-loaded images without placeholders increase CLS by 35% (Source: Google Performance Insights).
9. Pages with dynamically injected content suffer from a 50% higher CLS than static pages (Source: SEMrush).
10. Reducing third-party widgets lowers CLS by 15-20% (Source: Cloudflare).
11. CLS-friendly sites see a 12% higher user retention rate (Source: Google UX Research).
12. Implementing font-display: swap reduces CLS-related text shifts by 22% (Source: Web.dev).
13. Websites using proper viewport meta tags improve CLS scores by 18% (Source: Google Search Central).
14. 90% of layout shifts are caused by unsized media elements (Source: HTTP Archive).
15. Users perceive a page as “unstable” when CLS exceeds 0.2, increasing frustration by 40% (Source: Google UX Research).

Mobile vs. Desktop Core Web Vitals Statistics

1. 75% of mobile sites fail at least one Core Web Vital metric, compared to 45% of desktop sites (Source: Google Chrome UX Report).
2. Mobile websites have 32% worse performance scores than desktop counterparts (Source: Lighthouse Report).
3. Users on mobile are 40% more likely to leave a site with slow CWV scores (Source: Think with Google).
4. Mobile LCP scores are on average 30% slower than desktop due to network conditions (Source: Google Dev Tools).
5. Mobile-first indexing makes CWV performance even more crucial for rankings (Source: Search Engine Journal).
6. E-commerce sites see a 20% drop in sales from poor CWV on mobile (Source: Google Web Performance Report).
7. Mobile sites that meet CWV thresholds retain 35% more users (Source: Google UX Research).
8. CDN usage reduces mobile page load times by 25% on average (Source: Cloudflare).
9. Interactive elements on mobile are 50% more likely to suffer from poor INP scores (Source: Web.dev).
10. Mobile CLS scores tend to be 20% worse due to dynamic content shifts (Source: HTTP Archive).
11. Progressive Web Apps (PWAs) have 28% better CWV scores on mobile compared to traditional sites (Source: Google Lighthouse).
12. Accelerated Mobile Pages (AMP) improve CWV pass rates by 40% (Source: Web.dev).
13. Mobile users expect pages to load within 3 seconds, but most take over 5 seconds (Source: Think with Google).
14. Mobile-first optimized sites experience a 15% boost in SEO rankings (Source: Moz).
15. Reducing unnecessary JavaScript on mobile improves INP by 35% (Source: Google Performance Insights).

Impact of Core Web Vitals on SEO Rankings Statistics

1. Websites that pass all CWV metrics rank 28% higher on Google than those that fail (Source: Moz).
2. Poor CWV scores can lead to a 15-20% drop in organic traffic (Source: Ahrefs).
3. 80% of SEO professionals believe CWV directly affects rankings (Source: Search Engine Journal).
4. Google’s Page Experience update prioritizes CWV in ranking factors (Source: Google Search Central).
5. Sites that optimize CWV experience a 12% increase in click-through rates (CTR) (Source: SEMrush).
6. Pages with slow LCP have a 25% lower chance of appearing in the top 10 search results (Source: Google Marketing Platform).
7. Reducing CLS improves dwell time by 10%, boosting ranking signals (Source: Web.dev).
8. Core Web Vitals improvements can increase impressions by up to 20% (Source: Google Search Console Data).
9. Technical SEO audits in 2024 focus 35% more on CWV than in previous years (Source: Search Engine Land).
10. Websites with optimized CWV scores generate 22% more backlinks (Source: Ahrefs).
11. Google prioritizes CWV compliance for ranking mobile-first sites (Source: Google Developers Blog).
12. Improving CWV scores can reduce bounce rates by up to 35% (Source: Think with Google).
13. Longer page load times result in a 17% reduction in SEO visibility (Source: Moz).
14. Sites with poor INP scores see a 15% drop in engagement metrics (Source: Google UX Research).
15. Websites with a CWV score above 90 have a 50% higher chance of ranking in the top 3 results (Source: SEMrush).

E-Commerce and Core Web Vitals Stats

1. 60% of e-commerce websites fail CWV assessments, reducing conversion rates (Source: SEMrush).
2. Improving LCP by 0.2s can increase e-commerce conversions by 15% (Source: Google Marketing Platform).
3. Amazon found that every 100ms delay in load time reduces sales by 1% (Source: Amazon Web Performance Study).
4. Sites with fast CWV scores have 25% lower cart abandonment rates (Source: Google Web Performance Report).
5. Mobile shoppers are 2x more likely to leave an e-commerce site with poor CWV (Source: Think with Google).
6. Optimized CLS reduces e-commerce user frustration by 30% (Source: Web.dev).
7. Fast-loading product pages see a 20% increase in sales (Source: Google UX Research).
8. Poor INP scores result in 18% fewer successful checkouts (Source: HTTP Archive).
9. Lazy-loading images improve CWV pass rates by 22% (Source: Web.dev).
10. Adding preloading for fonts and images improves LCP by 15% (Source: Google Performance Insights).
11. E-commerce sites investing in CWV optimization see a 25% increase in organic traffic (Source: Moz).
12. Faster load times improve user trust and engagement by 28% (Source: Google UX Research).
13. Sites that pass CWV tests experience a 35% increase in repeat purchases (Source: SEMrush).
14. Reducing unnecessary JavaScript improves INP, leading to a 10% increase in checkout speed (Source: Lighthouse Report).
15. Better CWV scores reduce customer complaints about site usability by 40% (Source: Web.dev).

Core Web Vitals and Page Load Speed Stats

1. A 1-second delay in page load time reduces conversions by 7% (Source: Google Web Performance Report).
2. Websites that load in under 2.5 seconds have a 50% higher chance of retaining visitors (Source: Think with Google).
3. Slow-loading pages increase bounce rates by 32% for every additional second of delay (Source: Google UX Research).
4. Reducing server response time to under 200ms improves LCP by 15% (Source: Lighthouse Report).
5. Sites using HTTP/3 load 25% faster than those using HTTP/2 (Source: Cloudflare).
6. Implementing caching mechanisms reduces LCP by 30% (Source: Web.dev).
7. Websites that load within 1 second have a 3x higher engagement rate than slower sites (Source: Google Performance Insights).
8. Reducing total page size by 1MB improves LCP by 20% (Source: GTmetrix).
9. Preloading key resources reduces load time by 15% (Source: Smashing Magazine).
10. Sites that optimize images and scripts see an average speed improvement of 25% (Source: HTTP Archive).
11. A TTFB (Time to First Byte) below 500ms correlates with better CWV scores (Source: Google Search Central).
12. Poor LCP scores are responsible for 50% of slow page loads (Source: WebPageTest).
13. CDNs reduce overall page load time by an average of 35% (Source: Cloudflare).
14. Reducing main-thread blocking time speeds up interactive elements by 20% (Source: Google UX Research).
15. Mobile websites that load in under 3 seconds see a 22% increase in conversions (Source: Think with Google).

Web Technologies and Core Web Vitals Statistics

1. Websites built with WordPress have a 40% lower CWV pass rate compared to static site generators (Source: HTTP Archive).
2. React and Angular-based sites experience 20% worse INP scores due to JavaScript execution delays (Source: Chrome Dev Summit).
3. Websites using lazy loading improve LCP by 18% (Source: Google Performance Insights).
4. Sites using WebP and AVIF image formats reduce load times by 22% (Source: Web.dev).
5. Server-side rendering (SSR) improves CWV scores by 15-20% compared to client-side rendering (Source: Smashing Magazine).
6. Next.js sites have a 30% higher CWV pass rate compared to vanilla JavaScript sites (Source: HTTP Archive).
7. Sites using CSS containment strategies see a 12% improvement in CLS scores (Source: Google Developers Blog).
8. Reducing unused CSS and JavaScript improves page speed by up to 25% (Source: Lighthouse Report).
9. Websites that implement Brotli compression improve CWV scores by 18% (Source: Cloudflare).
10. Progressive Web Apps (PWAs) outperform traditional web apps in CWV scores by 28% (Source: Google Lighthouse).
11. Static site generators like Hugo and Jekyll result in 35% better CWV scores (Source: Web.dev).
12. Sites using Edge Functions reduce response times by up to 20% (Source: Netlify).
13. Minimizing DOM size improves INP and LCP performance by 15% (Source: Chrome UX Report).
14. Websites using third-party scripts experience a 25% drop in CWV performance (Source: HTTP Archive).
15. Removing render-blocking JavaScript improves CWV pass rates by 22% (Source: Google Performance Insights).

Future Trends and Core Web Vitals Predictions for 2025

1. 88% of web performance experts predict CWV will become even more critical for SEO rankings (Source: Search Engine Journal).
2. Google may introduce new CWV metrics beyond LCP, INP, and CLS in 2025 (Source: Google Search Central).
3. Machine learning and AI-driven optimizations will improve CWV compliance by 30% (Source: Google Developers Blog).
4. INP will receive more weight in ranking algorithms, replacing outdated FID measures (Source: Web.dev).
5. CDN and edge computing adoption will increase by 50% to enhance CWV performance (Source: Cloudflare).
6. WebAssembly (Wasm) adoption will grow, improving CWV scores for web apps (Source: Chrome Dev Summit).
7. 60% of businesses plan to invest in CWV optimization as part of their SEO strategy (Source: SEMrush).
8. Sites with AI-powered performance monitoring tools will see a 20% improvement in CWV scores (Source: Ahrefs).
9. Google’s Search Console enhancements will provide deeper insights into CWV improvements (Source: Google Search Central).
10. Core Web Vitals compliance will be a prerequisite for ranking in Google’s Top Stories carousel (Source: Search Engine Land).
11. Faster and more lightweight JavaScript frameworks will emerge to enhance CWV performance (Source: HTTP Archive).
12. Web3 and decentralized websites may struggle with CWV due to their complex infrastructure (Source: Web.dev).
13. INP performance will improve by 15% as developers optimize JavaScript execution (Source: Chrome UX Report).
14. Browsers will introduce new APIs to help developers measure and improve CWV scores in real time (Source: Google Developers Blog).
15. Core Web Vitals will remain a top priority for SEO professionals in 2025 and beyond (Source: Moz).

Conclusion

Core Web Vitals have become a crucial ranking factor in Google’s algorithm, influencing SEO, user experience, and conversion rates. The latest statistics indicate a steady improvement in compliance, but challenges remain, especially for mobile sites and JavaScript-heavy platforms. Businesses optimizing CWV can benefit from higher rankings, lower bounce rates, and better engagement. As CWV evolves, developers and marketers must stay ahead of trends to ensure optimal performance.

FAQs

What are Core Web Vitals?

Core Web Vitals are Google’s user experience metrics measuring page performance through LCP (Largest Contentful Paint), INP (Interaction to Next Paint, replacing FID), and CLS (Cumulative Layout Shift).

How do Core Web Vitals affect SEO?

Google uses CWV as a ranking factor. Websites with poor CWV scores can see lower search rankings, reduced traffic, and higher bounce rates.

What is a good LCP score?

A good LCP score is under 2.5 seconds. Anything above 4 seconds is considered poor and can negatively impact user experience.

Why was First Input Delay (FID) replaced with INP?

FID only measures the first interaction, while INP provides a more comprehensive view of responsiveness over time, making it a better metric for interactivity.

How can I improve my Core Web Vitals scores?

Optimizing images, reducing JavaScript execution time, using a CDN, enabling lazy loading, and fixing layout shifts can significantly improve CWV scores.