Back to Home
Framer Core Web Vitals Benchmark (Real Data)
We measured the Core Web Vitals of 50 real Framer sites, and 74% passed all three metrics — with LCP (largest contentful paint) the most common bottleneck, driven mostly by large hero media, while INP and CLS passed far more often thanks to Framer’s pre-rendered, CDN-backed output. In short: Framer gives sites a strong performance floor by default, and the sites that fail almost always fail on media weight, not on the platform.
Public performance datasets break out Webflow, Wix, WordPress, and Shopify — but not Framer, leaving a gap in what anyone can actually cite about Framer’s real-world speed. So we measured it ourselves. This benchmark reports how Framer sites perform on Core Web Vitals in the field, what separates the fast ones from the slow ones, and the specific fixes that move a Framer site into the 90s. Methodology is at the end so you can scrutinize or reproduce it.
How do Framer sites perform on Core Web Vitals?
Across our sample of 50 Framer sites, 74% passed all three Core Web Vitals, with a median mobile performance score of 90 — indicating that Framer’s defaults (pre-rendered HTML, global CDN, automatic image optimization, Brotli compression) give most sites a solid baseline, and the failures cluster around a small set of avoidable causes. The headline numbers:
Metric | Median (our sample) | % of sites “Good” | Most common cause of failure |
|---|---|---|---|
LCP (Largest Contentful Paint) | 1.9 s | 78% | Large hero image/video |
INP (Interaction to Next Paint) | 92 ms | 96% | Heavy custom code / too many animations |
CLS (Cumulative Layout Shift) | 0.02 | 97% | Unsized media / late-loading fonts |
All three passing | — | 74% | — |
Which Core Web Vital do Framer sites struggle with most?
In our data, LCP was the metric Framer sites failed most often, because the largest element on a marketing site is usually a hero image or video, and an unoptimized one delays paint regardless of how fast the platform is. Framer auto-converts images to AVIF/WebP and lazy-loads below-the-fold media, but it can’t fix an oversized source file or a lazy-loaded hero (which shouldn’t be lazy-loaded at all, since it’s the LCP element).
INP and CLS passed more consistently in our sample — INP because Framer sites are often light on JavaScript unless heavy custom code is added, and CLS because Framer’s layout system tends to reserve space well. The takeaway: Framer’s structure protects two of the three vitals for you; the third (LCP) is where builder discipline matters most.
What separates a fast Framer site from a slow one?
The fast Framer sites in our sample shared four traits — compressed/appropriately-sized media, externalized or minimal video, restrained custom code, and animations gated to in-view — while the slow ones consistently had at least one heavy asset or one unoptimized code component dragging the score down. The gap between a Framer site scoring in the 90s and one scoring in the 40s was rarely the platform; it was a handful of specific decisions:
Hero media — the single biggest LCP factor; sized right vs dropped in at full resolution.
Video — externalized to YouTube/Vimeo (fast) vs self-hosted and uncompressed (slow); Framer doesn’t compress self-hosted video.
Custom code — minimal and optimized vs heavy, unoptimized components that hurt INP.
Animation load — gated to section-in-view vs everything animating at once.
These are the same levers we cover in ourFramer performance guide.
How does Framer compare to other platforms on Core Web Vitals?
Framer’s baseline performance is competitive with or ahead of most no-code platforms because it pre-renders HTML and optimizes images by default, though a precise cross-platform comparison requires measuring each platform’s real-world field data on a like-for-like sample. Published datasets show, for context, that platform pass-rates vary widely and often mask a split between well-optimized and poorly-optimized sites on the same platform.
We’re not going to assert an exact Framer-vs-Webflow-vs-WordPress number without measuring it on a controlled sample — that study is worth doing separately and doing rigorously. What our Framer-only data supports is the narrower, defensible claim: a well-built Framer site reaches “good” Core Web Vitals reliably, and most that don’t are fixable in an afternoon.
How do you get a Framer site to pass Core Web Vitals?
To pass Core Web Vitals on Framer, size and compress your hero media (and never lazy-load the hero), externalize video, keep custom code minimal and optimized, gate animations to in-view, and confirm the site is marked “Optimized” in Site Settings. The prioritized checklist:
Fix the LCP element — size the hero image to display dimensions, compress it, and ensure it loads eagerly.
Externalize video to YouTube/Vimeo, or compress hard if self-hosting.
Audit custom code — remove what native layers can do; optimize what stays (protects INP).
Gate animations to section-in-view so the page doesn’t do all its work at once.
Reserve space for media and fonts to protect CLS.
Confirm “Optimized” in Site Settings → Versions, and re-test in PageSpeed Insights (mobile).
FAQ: Framer Core Web Vitals
Do Framer sites pass Core Web Vitals? Most well-built Framer sites do — in our sample, 74% passed all three. Framer’s pre-rendered HTML, CDN, and image optimization give a strong baseline; failures usually come from heavy media, not the platform.
Which Core Web Vital is hardest on Framer? LCP tends to be the bottleneck, because the largest element is usually a hero image or video. Sizing and compressing that media — and not lazy-loading the hero — is the main fix.
Is Framer fast by default? Yes, relatively — Framer auto-optimizes images to AVIF/WebP, serves from a global CDN with Brotli, and lazy-loads below-the-fold media. The floor is high; the ceiling depends on your media and code choices.
Why is my Framer site’s PageSpeed score low? Almost always a heavy asset (large hero image or self-hosted video), an unoptimized custom-code component, or too many animations loading at once. Fixing the largest asset usually delivers the biggest jump.
How was this benchmark measured? By sampling 50 live Framer sites and pulling field (CrUX) and lab (PageSpeed Insights / Lighthouse) data for LCP, INP, and CLS. See the methodology section for the full detail.
Can a Framer site score 90+ on PageSpeed? Yes — reaching 90+ is mostly about controlling media weight, deferring animation and embeds, and keeping custom code lean. Framer’s defaults handle much of the rest.
Methodology
This benchmark measured 50 live Framer sites in the first half of 2026, combining field data (Chrome UX Report, where available) and lab data (PageSpeed Insights / Lighthouse) for LCP, INP, and CLS on mobile. Sites were identified from the Framer Gallery, Framer Marketplace showcases, and public agency portfolios. For each site we recorded the three Core Web Vitals, the mobile performance score, and the primary score-limiting factor. We report medians and pass-rates rather than averages to reduce the effect of outliers. Where Chrome UX Report field data was unavailable, lab data was used and flagged.
Want a Framer site that passes Core Web Vitals by design?
Framer Lab builds Framer sites that are fast and CWV-clean from day one — senior-led, 50+ sites launched, NDA-friendly.Book a discovery call.
Start at theFramer Lab
The full fix list:How to speed up a Framer website
Compare platforms: is Framer bad for SEO?
Proof:Protocol case study
Written by Dilip, founder of Framer Lab, with 5+ years designing and building on Framer. Connect onLinkedInandX.
© Framer Lab 2026. All rights reserved.
© Framer Lab 2026. All rights reserved.
Now Accepting New Projects
