Backlinco analyzed 208 thousand pages to find out how the sites are doing with the main Internet indicators, Core Web Vitals.
As you know, in June Google will start launching a new Page Experience ranking signal, of which Core Web Vitals are a part. Therefore, the industry is now paying close attention to these indicators.
The main findings of the study:
- 53.77% of sites have a good LCP, 46.23% have poor or need improvement.
- 53.85% of sites have optimal FID scores, only 8.57% of sites have bad scores.
- 65.13% of analyzed sites have good CLS (Cumulative Layout Bias) scores.
- The average LCP for sites in the sample was 2.386 ms, FID – 137.74 ms, CLS – 0.14 (slightly higher than the optimal value).
The most common problems affecting LCP are high volume of requests and large data transfers. - The main reasons for the poor CLS scores were large layout shifts, rendering blocking resources, and text that was hidden until the font was loaded.
- The most common problem affecting FID was an ineffective caching policy.
- There was no direct correlation between LCP and user experience metrics (bounce rate, browsing depth, time on site). The same goes for CLS.
- There was a weak correlation between FID and pageviews: the higher the FID, the fewer views. No associations were found with other UX metrics.
NIX Solutions reminds that, according to iProspect data as of April 21, only 19% of sites had good CWV scores. The company monitors 1,500 sites across 15 industries, says SearchEngines. According to Screaming Frog as of August 2020, only 12% of mobile and 13% of desktop URLs passed Core Web Vitals, including all three metrics – LCP, FID, CLS.