Core Web Vitals
Core Web Vitals are Google's three field-measured page experience metrics: Largest Contentful Paint at 2.5 seconds or less[1], Interaction to Next Paint at 200 milliseconds or less[2], and Cumulative Layout Shift at 0.1 or less[3]. Each is judged at the 75th percentile of real page loads, split between mobile and desktop[4], so a site passes on the experience of its slower users rather than on a lab score.
The metrics and their history
Interaction to Next Paint replaced First Input Delay as the third vital on 12 March 2024[5], widening the responsiveness measure from the first interaction to every interaction on the page. Because the threshold sits at the 75th percentile, a page is rated good only when three quarters of its real loads are[4].
How much they move rankings
Google's documentation ties the vitals to its core ranking systems without quantifying the weight[6]. Google has also said page experience is one signal among many, that query intent and relevance are far stronger, and that a page with subpar experience can still rank highly on great content[7]. John Mueller has called it a real ranking factor and more than a tie-breaker, while stating that it does not replace relevance[8].
How many sites pass
Whether AI engines care
A study of 107,352 pages appearing in AI Overviews and AI Mode found only weak correlations with AI visibility, between -0.12 and -0.18 for LCP and -0.05 to -0.09 for CLS[11]. Its conclusion is that the vitals act as a constraint and not a growth lever: passing creates no advantage, severe failure creates a disadvantage[12]. Speed still has an indirect effect through crawling, since Google states that pages it can load and render faster let it read more of a site[13]. A vendor blog puts an AI crawler abandonment window at one to five seconds, without citing a measurement for it[14].
Why it matters for AI visibility
For an operator chasing citations the vitals are a floor, not a lever. The 107,352-page study found passing thresholds conferred no AI visibility advantage while severe failure was a disadvantage[12], which makes them worth fixing when broken and not worth optimising past good. The indirect route is crawl: Google states that pages it can load and render faster let it read more of a site[13], so speed buys coverage rather than ranking. Roughly half of mobile sites pass all three at once[9], so failing is common rather than disqualifying.
References (14)
- Web Vitals - web.dev Archive
- Web Vitals - web.dev Archive
- Web Vitals - web.dev Archive
- Web Vitals - web.dev Archive
- INP becomes a Core Web Vital - web.dev Archive
- Understanding Core Web Vitals and Google Search results Archive
- Core Web Vitals Ranking Factor Is More Than A Tie Breaker - Search Engine Journal Archive
- Core Web Vitals Ranking Factor Is More Than A Tie Breaker - Search Engine Journal Archive
- 2025 Web Almanac - Performance chapter Archive
- 2025 Web Almanac - Performance chapter Archive
- What 107,000 pages reveal about Core Web Vitals and AI search - Search Engine Land Archive
- What 107,000 pages reveal about Core Web Vitals and AI search - Search Engine Land Archive
- Crawl Budget Management For Large Sites - Google Search Central Archive
- Why Your Website Loads Too Slow for AI Crawlers Archive
Last updated 2026-09-05. Written and maintained by Baseline Labs.