Web Vitals

Web Vitals is Google's initiative for unified page-experience quality signals. Here's the full picture — what the initiative covers, which metrics are "Core" (and rank), which are diagnostic, and why your lab score and field data disagree. The hub for the supplementary metrics that sit under Core Web Vitals.

First published: Jun 26, 2026 · Last updated: Jul 18, 2026 · Advanced
demand #10 in Web Performance#85 in Technical SEO#113 on the site

Web Vitals is Google's umbrella initiative (launched May 2020) for page-experience quality signals. Core Web Vitals — LCP, INP, and CLS — are the subset that feeds ranking; INP replaced FID in March 2024. Everything else under the initiative (TTFB, FCP, TBT, Speed Index) is diagnostic and not a ranking factor. Google ranks on field data (CrUX, p75, page-level), not lab scores — which is why your Lighthouse number and your Search Console report often disagree. This hub maps the whole program and points to each metric's deep dive.

TL;DR — Web VitalsWeb Vitals is Google's initiative (launched May 2020) for unified page-experience quality signals. Core Web Vitals — LCP, INP, and CLS — are the subset used in ranking; the rest (TTFB, FCP, TBT, Speed Index) are diagnostic, not ranking factors. is Google’s umbrella initiative (May 2020); Core Web Vitals (LCPLargest Contentful Paint — render time of the largest visible image or text block, relative to when the page started loading. ≤2.5 s (at the 75th percentile) is good., INPInteraction to Next Paint — the input-to-paint latency at the 75th percentile of a page's interactions. ≤200 ms is good., CLSCumulative Layout Shift — a unitless score for unexpected visual movement, taken from the largest burst (session window) of layout shifts, not the lifetime sum. ≤0.1 is good.) are the stable subset that feeds ranking. INPInteraction to Next Paint — the input-to-paint latency at the 75th percentile of a page's interactions. ≤200 ms is good. replaced FIDFirst Input Delay — a retired Core Web Vital that measured the delay before the browser could begin processing a page's first interaction. Good was ≤100 ms. Replaced by INP in March 2024. on March 12, 2024. The “other” Web Vitals — TTFBTime to First Byte — the time from the start of a request to when the first byte of the response arrives. It's a diagnostic metric (not a Core Web Vital) and a major input to FCP and LCP; ≤0.8 s is good., FCPFirst Contentful Paint — the time from when a page starts loading to when any part of its content (text, image, SVG, or non-white canvas) first renders. Good is ≤1.8 s at the 75th percentile. It's a diagnostic metric, not a Core Web Vital., TBTTotal Blocking Time — the sum of the blocking portion (time above 50 ms) of every long task between First Contentful Paint and Time to Interactive. It's a lab-recommended metric and the lab proxy for INP, not a Core Web Vital., Speed IndexSpeed Index measures how quickly content is visually displayed during page load — the average time at which visible parts of the page appear, scored in seconds (lower is better). It's a lab-only Lighthouse metric, not a Core Web Vital and not a ranking factor. — are diagnostic, more experimental, and not ranking factors. Google ranks on field dataPerformance metrics captured from real users, not lab tests. (CrUXChrome User Experience Report — Google's public dataset of real-world (field) performance data from eligible Chrome users. It's the official field-data source behind the Core Web Vitals program., 75th percentile, page-level where available), not lab scores — which is why LighthouseLighthouse is Google's free, open-source tool that audits a page under simulated lab conditions and scores it 0–100 across Performance, Accessibility, Best Practices, and SEO. It's lab data — useful for debugging, not a ranking signal. and Search ConsoleGoogle's free tool for monitoring crawling, indexing, and search performance. disagree. Ranking weight is confirmed but lightweight: Mueller calls it “more than a tie-breaker” but “not giant factors.” Bing has no equivalent program.

Web Vitals is the initiative, not the metric

Google’s own definition: “Web Vitals is an initiative by Google to provide unified guidance for quality signals that are essential to delivering a great user experience on the web.” The whole point was to cut through metric overwhelm — by 2020 there were a dozen ways to score a page and no agreement on which to trust.

Evidence for this claim Web Vitals is Google's initiative for unified user-experience quality signals, with LCP, INP, and CLS as the current Core Web Vitals. Scope: Current web.dev definition and stable Core Web Vitals set. Confidence: high · Verified: web.dev: Web Vitals

The program is two tiers, and conflating them is the single most common mistake I see:

  • Core Web VitalsGoogle's three real-user UX metrics — LCP (loading), INP (responsiveness), and CLS (visual stability) — used by Google's ranking systems, with no official weight attached, measured on field data.“the subset of Web Vitals that apply to all web pages, should be measured by all site owners, and will be surfaced across all Google tools.” These are LCPLargest Contentful Paint — render time of the largest visible image or text block, relative to when the page started loading. ≤2.5 s (at the 75th percentile) is good., INP, and CLSCumulative Layout Shift — a unitless score for unexpected visual movement, taken from the largest burst (session window) of layout shifts, not the lifetime sum. ≤0.1 is good., and they’re the ones in Google’s ranking systems.
  • Other Web Vitals — supplementary, often tool- or context-specific metrics that “can serve as proxy—or as supplemental metrics for the three Core Web Vitals—to help capture a larger part of the experience or to aid in diagnosing a specific issue.” Google is explicit that “their definitions and thresholds may change with greater frequency” than the Core set.

That lifecycle distinction matters. Google tracks Core Web Vitals candidates through three phases — experimental, pending, then stable — before they count. Core Web Vitals are at the Stable stage — “actively supported” and they “won’t change more than once per year.” INP followed that exact runway: it moved from experimental to pending on May 10, 2023, then became stable on March 12, 2024, replacing FID. That’s why swapping FID for INP took a long, telegraphed runway, while the diagnostic metrics can shift quietly.

Core Web Vitals — the three that rank

MetricMeasures”Good” thresholdField-measurable?
LCP (Largest Contentful Paint)Loading≤ 2.5 sYes (CrUX)
INP (Interaction to Next Paint)Responsiveness≤ 200 msYes (CrUX)
CLS (Cumulative Layout Shift)Visual stability≤ 0.1Yes (CrUX)

INP became a Core Web Vital on March 12, 2024, replacing FID. FID was removed from Search Console that day and Chrome tool support ended September 9, 2024 — it’s fully retired. Any article or dashboard still listing FID as a current Core Web Vital is out of date.

Evidence for this claim INP replaced FID as a Core Web Vital on March 12, 2024. Scope: Chrome team's announced Core Web Vitals transition date. Confidence: high · Verified: web.dev: INP is now a Core Web Vital

The Core trio gets its own deep dive — see Core Web VitalsGoogle's three real-user UX metrics — LCP (loading), INP (responsiveness), and CLS (visual stability) — used by Google's ranking systems, with no official weight attached, measured on field data. for thresholds, the 75th-percentile rule, and how to improve each one. This hub is about the whole initiative, including the metrics that sit underneath it.

TIP Fix the failing Core Web Vital instead of chasing one composite score

This sample fails because LCP is the priority. INP and CLS need separate evidence and different fixes on pages where they fail.

Check the three field metrics with my free Page Speed Test Free

  1. Test the live URL and identify which of LCP, INP, or CLS fails.
  2. Follow the metric-specific recommendation rather than applying a generic speed fix.
  3. Verify the candidate cause in a lab trace, then wait for field data to reflect the deployed change.
The failing metric determines the work: this result calls for LCP investigation, not an undifferentiated performance cleanup.

The result says the page fails Core Web Vitals and lists improve the Largest Contentful Paint as the first fix. It recommends optimizing and preloading the hero image, then verifying the LCP element in a fresh lab trace.

Other Web Vitals — the diagnostic layer

This is the section most “web vitals” articles skip or mangle. These four are real Web Vitals, they show up constantly in your tooling, and none of them is a ranking factor:

MetricWhat it tells you”Good”Where it lives
TTFBTime to First Byte — the time from the start of a request to when the first byte of the response arrives. It's a diagnostic metric (not a Core Web Vital) and a major input to FCP and LCP; ≤0.8 s is good.Server response latency (precedes LCP)≤ 0.8 sField + lab
FCPFirst Contentful Paint — the time from when a page starts loading to when any part of its content (text, image, SVG, or non-white canvas) first renders. Good is ≤1.8 s at the 75th percentile. It's a diagnostic metric, not a Core Web Vital.When any content first paints≤ 1.8 sField + lab
TBTTotal Blocking Time — the sum of the blocking portion (time above 50 ms) of every long task between First Contentful Paint and Time to Interactive. It's a lab-recommended metric and the lab proxy for INP, not a Core Web Vital.Main-thread blocking (lab proxy for INP)< 200 msLab only
Speed IndexSpeed Index measures how quickly content is visually displayed during page load — the average time at which visible parts of the page appear, scored in seconds (lower is better). It's a lab-only Lighthouse metric, not a Core Web Vital and not a ranking factor.Perceived load speed from a load video≤ 3.4 sLab only

The trap is that TBT and Speed Index don’t exist in the field at all — there’s no CrUX value for them. They’re Lighthouse-computed proxies. TBT approximates INP (Lighthouse can’t measure real interactions, so it measures how long the main thread is blocked instead); a low TBT usually means a low INP, but they’re not the same number. Speed Index is a perceived-speed proxy weighted at roughly 10% of the Lighthouse Performance Score. Google itself notes about TTFB: “Because TTFB isn’t a Core Web Vitals metric, it’s not absolutely necessary that sites meet the ‘good’ TTFB threshold.”

Field data is what Google ranks on

This is the distinction that resolves most “why don’t my numbers match” confusion. Lab data is a single synthetic test — Lighthouse, DevTools, the lab section of PageSpeed InsightsPageSpeed Insights (PSI) is a free Google tool at pagespeed.web.dev that reports two kinds of data for a URL: real-user field data from the Chrome UX Report and a single Lighthouse lab run with the 0–100 Performance score. Only the field Core Web Vitals are what Google uses for ranking. — run on a simulated device with a cold cache. Field data is the Chrome User Experience Report (CrUX): real Chrome users, aggregated at the 75th percentile over a 28-day rolling window, split by mobile and desktop.

Google ranks on the field data. As Philip Walton put it, “If you have both field data and lab data for a given page, field data is what you should use to prioritize your efforts.” So a 100 Performance Score in Lighthouse doesn’t mean your real users pass, and a failing lab score doesn’t necessarily mean you’re failing rankings. Use lab tools to diagnose, CrUX to judge.

One more thing the top-ranking pages almost never mention: Google uses page-level CrUX data where there’s enough of it, not the origin-level (whole-site) average. That matters a lot. In my Core Web Vitals data study (CrUX plus 5.2M pages), only 21.2% of individual pages passed all three Core Web Vitals versus 33% at the origin level. The origin average flatters you — Google ranks the page.

Do Web Vitals affect rankings? (Honestly.)

Only the three Core Web Vitals are confirmed ranking signals. Google’s own FAQ says it plainly: “Core Web Vitals are used by our ranking systems.” But Google doesn’t publish a percentage, a fixed weight, or a formal tiebreaker mechanism anywhere — its own docs say “there is no single signal. Our core ranking systems look at a variety of signals that align with overall page experience.” The closest thing to a weight estimate comes from John Mueller’s own characterization, not an official doc: “it’s a ranking factor, and it’s more than a tie-breaker, but it also doesn’t replace relevance,” and separately, “Core Web Vitals are not giant factors in ranking.” Google’s own docs go further: “Trying to get a perfect score just for SEO reasons may not be the best use of your time,” and “Google Search always seeks to show the most relevant content, even if the page experience is sub-par.”

So: fix Core Web Vitals because they’re genuinely good for users and because Google confirms they factor into ranking — not because a green score guarantees a jump in position. As Google’s own FAQ puts it, good scores in reports like Search Console or third-party tools “doesn’t guarantee that your pages will rank at the top of Google Search results.”

Does Bing use Web Vitals?

No. Bing has no equivalent to Core Web Vitals and doesn’t use Google’s LCP/INP/CLS framework as a formal ranking signal. It still values fast, usable pages — but it leans on behavioral signals (click-through, dwell time, bounce) as its quality proxies rather than a CrUX-style field assessment. Optimizing Core Web Vitals helps Bing indirectly (faster pages → better behavior) but there’s no proprietary Bing program to chase.

The state of Web Vitals in 2026

As of the May 2026 CrUX release, 55.9% of tracked origins pass all three Core Web Vitals. LCP remains the hardest (≈68.6% good) and INP the easiest now that sites have adapted to the FID transition (≈86.6% good). There are no confirmed new Core Web Vitals coming — claims about a “Visual Stability Index” or similar are third-party speculation with no official Google announcement, so treat them as unconfirmed until Google says otherwise.

Where to go next

This hub is the map. The Core trio has its own Core Web VitalsGoogle's three real-user UX metrics — LCP (loading), INP (responsiveness), and CLS (visual stability) — used by Google's ranking systems, with no official weight attached, measured on field data. deep dive; below are the supplementary metrics that sit under this initiative, each nested under this hub:

  • First Contentful Paint — when the first content paints (≤ 1.8 s good); a loading diagnostic that often explains a slow LCP, but not a Core Web Vital.
  • Time to First Byte — server response latency that precedes FCP and LCP (≤ 0.8 s good); fix it to help LCP, but TTFB itself isn’t a ranking factor.
  • Total Blocking Time — the lab-only proxy for INP (< 200 ms good); how long the main thread was blocked, used to debug responsiveness when you can’t measure real interactions.
  • Speed Index — the lab-only perceived-load-speed metric (≤ 3.4 s good) computed from a video of the page loading; roughly 10% of the Lighthouse score.

For the field-data backbone everything here rests on, see CrUXChrome User Experience Report — Google's public dataset of real-world (field) performance data from eligible Chrome users. It's the official field-data source behind the Core Web Vitals program., and for the broader picture, Web Performance.

Add an expert note

Pin an expert quote

New person? Create their unclaimed profile at /admin/experts/ → Pin a quote first.