Most Websites Fail to Meet User Experience Requirements

Searchmetrics research suggests 96% of sites in desktop searches and over 90% of those in mobile searches currently fail to meet Google’s three Core Web Vitals usability thresholds

Most websites that rank in Google's top 20 search results do not currently pass the minimum requirements for a good page experience set out in the search engine's new Core Web Vitals update which officially rolls out from mid-June, according to new research from Searchmetrics.

96% of sites tested in US desktop searches and more than 90% of those in mobile searches fail to meet Google's three Core Web Vitals thresholds for good website performance and usability and risk their rankings being negatively impacted from June.


Currently only the top 2 or 3 ranking websites in search results achieve the required "good" score in most of the Core Web Vitals metrics according to the analysis by Searchmetrics.

The study which analyzed over 2 million web pages appearing in the top 20 Google results in the US, UK and Germany, reveals that there is already a positive relationship between pages that rank higher and those that perform well on Core Web Vitals metrics (suggesting Google already rewards sites that offer better usability). Once the update officially rolls out, the Core Web Vitals are likely to have even more influence on page rankings, according to Searchmetrics.

One notable exception to the general trend of the early findings was Google-owned YouTube, which was currently found to rank high in searches despite performing poorly for the Core Web Vitals related to speed of loading and responsiveness. This may change when the update officially rolls out in June, but YouTube might possibly be gaining an advantage from its strong brand recognition which is helping it overcome individual negative usability issues.

On the other hand, online encyclopaedia, Wikipedia, currently performs well for all the Core Web Vitals metrics — it might be a good example of the type of user experience others should be aiming for. Its good scores are related to its lightweight approach to web design, using mainly text and optimized images and the fact that it avoids using too much dynamic content such as ads which can jump around on the page and create a negative experience.

Google is introducing Core Web Vitals to assess real-world web user experience in three areas:

■ How quickly the content on a page loads

■ Responsiveness: the time taken to respond to a visitor's first interaction, such as clicking on a button or a link

■ Visual stability: does the layout or content jump around?

These signals will be included in Google's search algorithm with the search engine aiming to deliver a ranking boost to web pages that are delivering a good experience.

"The Google Core Web Vitals update is in many ways a response to websites not really living up to user expectations. It's a clear message to website owners that not putting users first may have a negative effect on rankings," said Marcus Tober, Founder and Chief Evangelist at Searchmetrics. "Our initial findings suggest that there's a lot of work to do for most websites to get their usability up to par. And, of course, ecommerce and other enterprises need to be aware that a good user experience will not just influence their Google rankings but have a positive business impact, it can help to drive conversions and encourage visitors to stay onsite longer, engage and keep returning."

According to Searchmetrics among the reasons behind the poor user experience highlighted by the study is the rise of "Code Bloat" or unnecessary code on webpages built using templates included within website builders such as WordPress and Wix, as well additional code in web plugins, all of which slows pages down and creates optimization challenges.

Another issue is dynamic content such as ads and newsletter opt-in boxes which can cause the layout of pages to shift if they are not implemented properly.

Five key findings based on the US findings of the research include:

Only sites ranked 1-3 deliver a good user experience for loading important page content quickly

Largest Contentful Paint measures the time it takes for the largest image or block of text to become visible when a user clicks onto a page. For a good user experience, Google suggests this should happen within the first 2.5 seconds. But of the top 20 ranking websites in search results, only the first 3 positions are below this threshold. The average time for pages listed in the top 20 positions is 3 seconds (21.3% slower than Google's benchmark).

Most sites can't pass the test for controlling shifting elements on their pages

Cumulative Layout Shift tracks how much the elements on a page jump about or shift creating a negative user experience. And the analysis indicates most sites perform poorly on this. Google specifies a score below 0.1 as "good", while below 0.25 "needs improvement" — everything else is "poor". The main causes of layout shifts include dynamic content and media pop-outs such as "subscribe now" boxes or ads. According to the data, only the position zero results (featured snippets) which Google places above the traditional organic results to provide quick answers to factual queries, achieves a "good" score. Position one is close, but all other search results fall into the "poor" bracket (below 0.25). The average score or the top 20 results is 0.38 (275.6% worse than Google's required "good" rating).

Majority of sites fall short of Google's benchmark for good responsiveness

First Input Delay measures the time it takes for a page to respond to a visitor interaction such as someone clicking on a button or a link. Because this can only be measured if a user actually interacts with a page, Google suggests using the Total Blocking Time (TBT) as a good proxy measurement. TBT assesses the total time taken by tasks that stop the user interacting with a page (such as retrieving images, videos, scripts etc).

And the research suggests that the top 5 ranking results have an average total blocking time of 554 milliseconds — 84.6% slower than Google's "good" benchmark of 300 milliseconds (the average for top 20 search results is 136.7% slower that the benchmark). Only sites that appear in the top 2 rankings are consistently below Google's "good" performance threshold, implying that there are a lot of asset-heavy websites with long loading tasks that delay user responsiveness.

YouTube ranks high despite currently showing poor Core Web Vitals

YouTube was found to currently have poor Core Web Vitals scores around speed of loading (LCP) and responsiveness (FID). If other websites performed as badly, they would be judged to be offering a low-quality user experience. But YouTube is ranking high despite this, most likely because of the platform's overwhelming popularity, which helps it deliver positive user signals. Most other sites could not afford to score so low on individual user experience metrics because they do not have the luxury of YouTube's extreme brand recognition according to Searchmetrics.

Wikipedia could be the "Poster Boy" of the new Core Web Vitals update

Wikipedia currently meets or surpasses Google's Core Web Vitals performance thresholds across almost all metrics, meaning it could serve as a good example to the web community. The encyclopaedia site's lightweight approach to web design, using mainly text and optimized images means it tends to have a low score for Largest Contentful Paint on many web pages. It also has good responsiveness with a Total Blocking Time of 0 on a lot of pages which it achieves by avoiding long loading tasks created by plugins, excessive JavaScript or large video files. And because it uses a relatively fixed layout for the vast majority of its pages and limits dynamic content with no ads, it does not suffer from content or layouts jumping around.

Methodology: Searchmetrics crawled over 2 million URLs, crunched the numbers, and performed correlation analysis across the top 20 organic Google search positions. in three countries: the USA, UK and Germany. The keywords were filtered based on relevance and the regional keyword sets were kept as distinct as possible. Core Web Vitals and other performance metrics for the search results were measured by accessing the PageSpeed and Lighthouse APIs. Once the data had been gathered, Searchmetrics performed a correlation analysis to calculate a correlation coefficient for each performance metric - this value gives an impression of whether a good score in the selected metric is associated with good page rankings. Simple averages for the top 20 and top 5 positions were calculated per metric, as well as how close these values are to Google’s benchmarks.

Related Links

Hot Topics

The Latest

Implementing AI Isn't the Hard Part Anymore - Adoption Is

Two years ago, almost every customer conversation about AI started with the same questions: Which model should we use? What can it do? Is it ready for the enterprise? Today, those discussions have moved on. CIOs are far more interested in how to govern AI, integrate it with existing systems, prepare their workforce and make it part of everyday operations. The challenge is no longer to prove that AI can deliver value. It's instead about how to embed AI into the business in a way that's secure, scalable and delivers measurable outcomes ...

 

The Incident Load Is Rising, but Recovery Times Aren't Moving

Two things happened to production incidents between 2023 and now, and they did not happen at the same speed. The first is that a class of dependency that barely existed three years ago now accounts for one incident in ten. Incidents disclosed by AI model and AI application providers rose from 1.7% of all disclosed unplanned incidents in 2023 to 10.7% in 2026 year to date, roughly a sixfold rise; that counts only incidents at AI companies themselves, so the true share is higher. The second is that the time to close an incident has not come down ...

Your AI Pipeline May Have a Document Observability Problem

When an AI assistant gives an incomplete or incorrect answer, teams often blame the model. They adjust prompts, switch models, increase context windows or test a new retrieval strategy. However the model may not be a problem. In many enterprise AI workflows, the problem begins inside the document-ingestion pipeline ...

The SIEM Isn't the Problem. Your Telemetry Architecture Is

If you talk to any security or observability teams right now, they're all fighting the same fire: their tooling was built to ingest X, but their sources are pumping Y and soon to be doing Z. The knee-jerk reaction is always the same: we need more platform. However, this reaction is wrong. Let me explain why, because the solution to this problem is foundational, not financial. Instead of hurling yet more money at the problem, make sure you've done what's needed upstream ...

As AI Scales Across Enterprises, Breaking Points Emerge

Rapid AI adoption and the unique ways AI workloads operate is redefining the scope and structure of what these teams must deliver. This shift is forcing organizations to rethink how they manage scale, automation, and control, according to The State of SRE and Platform Engineering 2026, a new report from Dynatrace ...

Preparing Network Infrastructure for AI Starts with the Basics

AI is usually talked about as a software tool, but it also depends heavily on the network behind it. Whether a company is using AI for chatbots, automation, monitoring, analytics, or employee support, all of that information has to move across the network in a reliable and secure way. That means AI is not just an application decision. It is also an infrastructure decision. Before organizations rush into AI, they should ask a simple question: Is our network ready to support it? ...

Agentic Operations Begin with Governed Middleware Access

Enterprise AI often lacks governed access to where business processes actually execute. Without that access, AI agents may be able to reason, but they cannot operate reliably across enterprise workflows. For AI agents to effectively carry out workflows, they will require integration-layer context and controls. Organizations can implement these prerequisites by providing AI with managed access to the middleware layer ...

The Network Data Problem Slowing Down Enterprise AIOps

Enterprise networks rarely behave the same way for very long. A routing adjustment in one region may unexpectedly alter application performance in another. A cloud migration may introduce hidden dependencies that go unnoticed until an outage occurs. All the while, the network is managed by several different teams, each of whom use different tool sets — and as a result, have different views of the network ... There’s usually an engineer who remembers why traffic fails over a certain way between sites, or which transparent firewall was added where. The problem is that human memory cannot scale alongside enterprise-scale networks ...

The Governance Gap Behind AI's Infrastructure Problem

Ask an infrastructure team how confident they are in their ability to govern AI, and most will tell you they've got it handled. A recent survey of 406 IT decision-makers and platform engineering leaders found 86% expressing exactly that confidence. Ask the same group whether they have a formal written AI governance policy, and the number drops to 30%, according to Spacelift's Infrastructure Automation Report ...

MEAN TIME TO INSIGHT Podcast - Episode 27: Observability Unification

In MEAN TIME TO INSIGHT Episode 27, Shamus McGillicuddy, EMA VP of Research, Network Infrastructure and Operations, and Parker Hathcock, EMA Research Director covering IT Service/Operations (ServiceOps), discuss observability unification in modern IT operations ... 

Most Websites Fail to Meet User Experience Requirements

Searchmetrics research suggests 96% of sites in desktop searches and over 90% of those in mobile searches currently fail to meet Google’s three Core Web Vitals usability thresholds

Most websites that rank in Google's top 20 search results do not currently pass the minimum requirements for a good page experience set out in the search engine's new Core Web Vitals update which officially rolls out from mid-June, according to new research from Searchmetrics.

96% of sites tested in US desktop searches and more than 90% of those in mobile searches fail to meet Google's three Core Web Vitals thresholds for good website performance and usability and risk their rankings being negatively impacted from June.


Currently only the top 2 or 3 ranking websites in search results achieve the required "good" score in most of the Core Web Vitals metrics according to the analysis by Searchmetrics.

The study which analyzed over 2 million web pages appearing in the top 20 Google results in the US, UK and Germany, reveals that there is already a positive relationship between pages that rank higher and those that perform well on Core Web Vitals metrics (suggesting Google already rewards sites that offer better usability). Once the update officially rolls out, the Core Web Vitals are likely to have even more influence on page rankings, according to Searchmetrics.

One notable exception to the general trend of the early findings was Google-owned YouTube, which was currently found to rank high in searches despite performing poorly for the Core Web Vitals related to speed of loading and responsiveness. This may change when the update officially rolls out in June, but YouTube might possibly be gaining an advantage from its strong brand recognition which is helping it overcome individual negative usability issues.

On the other hand, online encyclopaedia, Wikipedia, currently performs well for all the Core Web Vitals metrics — it might be a good example of the type of user experience others should be aiming for. Its good scores are related to its lightweight approach to web design, using mainly text and optimized images and the fact that it avoids using too much dynamic content such as ads which can jump around on the page and create a negative experience.

Google is introducing Core Web Vitals to assess real-world web user experience in three areas:

■ How quickly the content on a page loads

■ Responsiveness: the time taken to respond to a visitor's first interaction, such as clicking on a button or a link

■ Visual stability: does the layout or content jump around?

These signals will be included in Google's search algorithm with the search engine aiming to deliver a ranking boost to web pages that are delivering a good experience.

"The Google Core Web Vitals update is in many ways a response to websites not really living up to user expectations. It's a clear message to website owners that not putting users first may have a negative effect on rankings," said Marcus Tober, Founder and Chief Evangelist at Searchmetrics. "Our initial findings suggest that there's a lot of work to do for most websites to get their usability up to par. And, of course, ecommerce and other enterprises need to be aware that a good user experience will not just influence their Google rankings but have a positive business impact, it can help to drive conversions and encourage visitors to stay onsite longer, engage and keep returning."

According to Searchmetrics among the reasons behind the poor user experience highlighted by the study is the rise of "Code Bloat" or unnecessary code on webpages built using templates included within website builders such as WordPress and Wix, as well additional code in web plugins, all of which slows pages down and creates optimization challenges.

Another issue is dynamic content such as ads and newsletter opt-in boxes which can cause the layout of pages to shift if they are not implemented properly.

Five key findings based on the US findings of the research include:

Only sites ranked 1-3 deliver a good user experience for loading important page content quickly

Largest Contentful Paint measures the time it takes for the largest image or block of text to become visible when a user clicks onto a page. For a good user experience, Google suggests this should happen within the first 2.5 seconds. But of the top 20 ranking websites in search results, only the first 3 positions are below this threshold. The average time for pages listed in the top 20 positions is 3 seconds (21.3% slower than Google's benchmark).

Most sites can't pass the test for controlling shifting elements on their pages

Cumulative Layout Shift tracks how much the elements on a page jump about or shift creating a negative user experience. And the analysis indicates most sites perform poorly on this. Google specifies a score below 0.1 as "good", while below 0.25 "needs improvement" — everything else is "poor". The main causes of layout shifts include dynamic content and media pop-outs such as "subscribe now" boxes or ads. According to the data, only the position zero results (featured snippets) which Google places above the traditional organic results to provide quick answers to factual queries, achieves a "good" score. Position one is close, but all other search results fall into the "poor" bracket (below 0.25). The average score or the top 20 results is 0.38 (275.6% worse than Google's required "good" rating).

Majority of sites fall short of Google's benchmark for good responsiveness

First Input Delay measures the time it takes for a page to respond to a visitor interaction such as someone clicking on a button or a link. Because this can only be measured if a user actually interacts with a page, Google suggests using the Total Blocking Time (TBT) as a good proxy measurement. TBT assesses the total time taken by tasks that stop the user interacting with a page (such as retrieving images, videos, scripts etc).

And the research suggests that the top 5 ranking results have an average total blocking time of 554 milliseconds — 84.6% slower than Google's "good" benchmark of 300 milliseconds (the average for top 20 search results is 136.7% slower that the benchmark). Only sites that appear in the top 2 rankings are consistently below Google's "good" performance threshold, implying that there are a lot of asset-heavy websites with long loading tasks that delay user responsiveness.

YouTube ranks high despite currently showing poor Core Web Vitals

YouTube was found to currently have poor Core Web Vitals scores around speed of loading (LCP) and responsiveness (FID). If other websites performed as badly, they would be judged to be offering a low-quality user experience. But YouTube is ranking high despite this, most likely because of the platform's overwhelming popularity, which helps it deliver positive user signals. Most other sites could not afford to score so low on individual user experience metrics because they do not have the luxury of YouTube's extreme brand recognition according to Searchmetrics.

Wikipedia could be the "Poster Boy" of the new Core Web Vitals update

Wikipedia currently meets or surpasses Google's Core Web Vitals performance thresholds across almost all metrics, meaning it could serve as a good example to the web community. The encyclopaedia site's lightweight approach to web design, using mainly text and optimized images means it tends to have a low score for Largest Contentful Paint on many web pages. It also has good responsiveness with a Total Blocking Time of 0 on a lot of pages which it achieves by avoiding long loading tasks created by plugins, excessive JavaScript or large video files. And because it uses a relatively fixed layout for the vast majority of its pages and limits dynamic content with no ads, it does not suffer from content or layouts jumping around.

Methodology: Searchmetrics crawled over 2 million URLs, crunched the numbers, and performed correlation analysis across the top 20 organic Google search positions. in three countries: the USA, UK and Germany. The keywords were filtered based on relevance and the regional keyword sets were kept as distinct as possible. Core Web Vitals and other performance metrics for the search results were measured by accessing the PageSpeed and Lighthouse APIs. Once the data had been gathered, Searchmetrics performed a correlation analysis to calculate a correlation coefficient for each performance metric - this value gives an impression of whether a good score in the selected metric is associated with good page rankings. Simple averages for the top 20 and top 5 positions were calculated per metric, as well as how close these values are to Google’s benchmarks.

Related Links

Hot Topics

The Latest

Implementing AI Isn't the Hard Part Anymore - Adoption Is

Two years ago, almost every customer conversation about AI started with the same questions: Which model should we use? What can it do? Is it ready for the enterprise? Today, those discussions have moved on. CIOs are far more interested in how to govern AI, integrate it with existing systems, prepare their workforce and make it part of everyday operations. The challenge is no longer to prove that AI can deliver value. It's instead about how to embed AI into the business in a way that's secure, scalable and delivers measurable outcomes ...

 

The Incident Load Is Rising, but Recovery Times Aren't Moving

Two things happened to production incidents between 2023 and now, and they did not happen at the same speed. The first is that a class of dependency that barely existed three years ago now accounts for one incident in ten. Incidents disclosed by AI model and AI application providers rose from 1.7% of all disclosed unplanned incidents in 2023 to 10.7% in 2026 year to date, roughly a sixfold rise; that counts only incidents at AI companies themselves, so the true share is higher. The second is that the time to close an incident has not come down ...

Your AI Pipeline May Have a Document Observability Problem

When an AI assistant gives an incomplete or incorrect answer, teams often blame the model. They adjust prompts, switch models, increase context windows or test a new retrieval strategy. However the model may not be a problem. In many enterprise AI workflows, the problem begins inside the document-ingestion pipeline ...

The SIEM Isn't the Problem. Your Telemetry Architecture Is

If you talk to any security or observability teams right now, they're all fighting the same fire: their tooling was built to ingest X, but their sources are pumping Y and soon to be doing Z. The knee-jerk reaction is always the same: we need more platform. However, this reaction is wrong. Let me explain why, because the solution to this problem is foundational, not financial. Instead of hurling yet more money at the problem, make sure you've done what's needed upstream ...

As AI Scales Across Enterprises, Breaking Points Emerge

Rapid AI adoption and the unique ways AI workloads operate is redefining the scope and structure of what these teams must deliver. This shift is forcing organizations to rethink how they manage scale, automation, and control, according to The State of SRE and Platform Engineering 2026, a new report from Dynatrace ...

Preparing Network Infrastructure for AI Starts with the Basics

AI is usually talked about as a software tool, but it also depends heavily on the network behind it. Whether a company is using AI for chatbots, automation, monitoring, analytics, or employee support, all of that information has to move across the network in a reliable and secure way. That means AI is not just an application decision. It is also an infrastructure decision. Before organizations rush into AI, they should ask a simple question: Is our network ready to support it? ...

Agentic Operations Begin with Governed Middleware Access

Enterprise AI often lacks governed access to where business processes actually execute. Without that access, AI agents may be able to reason, but they cannot operate reliably across enterprise workflows. For AI agents to effectively carry out workflows, they will require integration-layer context and controls. Organizations can implement these prerequisites by providing AI with managed access to the middleware layer ...

The Network Data Problem Slowing Down Enterprise AIOps

Enterprise networks rarely behave the same way for very long. A routing adjustment in one region may unexpectedly alter application performance in another. A cloud migration may introduce hidden dependencies that go unnoticed until an outage occurs. All the while, the network is managed by several different teams, each of whom use different tool sets — and as a result, have different views of the network ... There’s usually an engineer who remembers why traffic fails over a certain way between sites, or which transparent firewall was added where. The problem is that human memory cannot scale alongside enterprise-scale networks ...

The Governance Gap Behind AI's Infrastructure Problem

Ask an infrastructure team how confident they are in their ability to govern AI, and most will tell you they've got it handled. A recent survey of 406 IT decision-makers and platform engineering leaders found 86% expressing exactly that confidence. Ask the same group whether they have a formal written AI governance policy, and the number drops to 30%, according to Spacelift's Infrastructure Automation Report ...

MEAN TIME TO INSIGHT Podcast - Episode 27: Observability Unification

In MEAN TIME TO INSIGHT Episode 27, Shamus McGillicuddy, EMA VP of Research, Network Infrastructure and Operations, and Parker Hathcock, EMA Research Director covering IT Service/Operations (ServiceOps), discuss observability unification in modern IT operations ...