Only 32% of mobile websites pass Google's core web vitals

How do vital core web elements influence website positioning?

For the purposes of the study, Semrush It took into account CWV data from 24,000 mobile and 25,000 desktop URLs during October 2021, as well as historical data on 1,7 million desktop URLs and 324,000 mobile URLs, from June to September 2021. This was done to analyze the impact of CWV integration before and after its update.

First, to analyze the impact of CWV on ranking, the percentage of URLs that passed CWV (on mobile data) was analyzed before and after the update (October 2021), without revealing an exact causal relationship. "Rather, the
"The data below reflects a correlation between CWV and positioning," he explains. Semrush"The causality and correlation argument does not appear to apply in this case because there seems to be no significant correlation between ranking and passing CWV, as the percentage of URLs that did pass it actually decreased in some cases. However, from position 1 to 8, the differences in the numbers before and after the update are extremely marginal."

You might be interested in this article: What is SEO and why is not having it fatal for your website?

Starting from this point we can ask ourselves how many URLs actually pass the CWV test?

In response, we can say that after the update, only 32% of the URLs analyzed on mobile devices passed all three tests (37,8% on desktop). This analysis considered the URLs' load quality (LCP), interactivity (FID), and visual stability (CLS) principles. According to the results, interactivity was one of the easiest to pass, with over 90% of the URLs passing this metric. On the other hand, around 60% of those evaluated had no problems with the CLS metric; while 40% of the URLs managed to pass LCP, confirming it as the most complex of the CWVs.

In any case, Semrush Remember that "Google simulates mobile performance as if the user were on a 3G device. That is, if your users are in a place where 4G is the norm, your lab data will inherently be much 'worse' than what users actually find on your website."

Is it easy to go from a bad rating to a good one in CWVs?

Google used data from both mobile and desktop devices to analyze the percentage of improvements needed to move from a Low score to a Good score, from Low to Needs Improvement, and from Needs Improvement to Good. At this point, a specific distinction was made between the mobile and desktop results. In the case of mobile devices, the graph shows that of the URLs evaluated, only 0,1% showed a genuine improvement across all three metrics.