TanStack Core Web Vitals

How real Chrome users experience tanstack.com, from Google's Chrome UX Report: the 75th percentile of visits on every device.

TanStack fails Core Web Vitals

Sep 25 – Oct 22, all devices

Chrome UX Report

INP

176 ms

Good

LCP

2.7 s

Needs improvement

CLS

0.01

Good

FCP

2.5 s

Needs improvement

TTFB

2.0 s

Poor

INP over time

Weekly p75. The dashed line is the 200 ms "good" threshold.

What the numbers say

TanStack fails Core Web Vitals on Largest Contentful Paint (2.7 s, good is 2.5 s or less).
The server answers slowly: time to first byte is 2.0 s, 76% of the LCP time, so a faster backend or cache would help most.
Among 23 frameworks and docs sites we track, TanStack has the 22nd fastest LCP.
INP has improved by 37 ms over the last 25 weeks, from 210 ms to 173 ms.

Keep a site like this from getting slower

Real-user data shows a regression weeks after it ships. Vitalgate runs Lighthouse on every pull request and fails the check when a change breaks budgets like these: LCP ≤ 2.7 s, CLS ≤ 0.10, FCP ≤ 2.6 s.

Other frameworks and docs sites

Site	Core Web Vitals	LCP	INP	CLS
React	Passes	1.2 s	78 ms	0.00
Next.js	Passes	1.2 s	85 ms	0.00
Vue	Fails	1.3 s	64 ms	0.11
Svelte	Passes	878 ms	55 ms	0.00
Astro	Passes	983 ms	35 ms	0.00
Nuxt	Passes	1.5 s	129 ms	0.02
Angular	Passes	1.5 s	78 ms	0.06
Remix	Passes	1.4 s	124 ms	0.00
Vite	Passes	1.3 s	67 ms	0.04
Tailwind CSS	Passes	1.3 s	73 ms	0.00
TypeScript	Passes	1.5 s	60 ms	0.05
MDN	Passes	1.0 s	52 ms	0.01
web.dev	Fails	2.7 s	134 ms	0.09
Node.js	Passes	1.1 s	115 ms	0.01
Deno	Passes	2.0 s	63 ms	0.00
Bun	Passes	1.3 s	95 ms	0.01
Python	Passes	909 ms	23 ms	0.03
Django	Passes	1.2 s	37 ms	0.00
Laravel	Passes	2.3 s	135 ms	0.01
Ruby on Rails	Passes	786 ms	45 ms	0.03
Go	Passes	1.6 s	45 ms	0.02
shadcn/ui	Passes	1.0 s	171 ms	0.00