Page views
3
24h
± 0% vs previous 24h
LCP · p75
3.91 s
33% good · 3 samples
▲ 223% vs previous 24h
INP · p75
155 ms
67% good · 3 samples
▼ 55% vs previous 24h
CLS · p75
0.08
67% good · 3 samples
▲ 231% vs previous 24h
FCP · p75
3.89 s
33% good · 3 samples
▲ 229% vs previous 24h
TTFB · p75
2.97 s
33% good · 3 samples
▲ 336% vs previous 24h
Happy page views
33%
33% unhappy · 3 rated
What to fix first
Nothing stands out for these filters: no page type, element or script has enough slow page views to call out.
Based on 3 page views. Findings need at least 5 measured page views each, so more show up as traffic grows (try the 30d range).
Trend
By device
| Device | Page views | p75 LCP | p75 INP | p75 CLS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Desktop | 3 | 3.91 s | 155 ms | 0.08 |
Does speed cost engagement?
Page views grouped by their own LCP. If slower pages get fewer clicks and less reading, that's the cost of slowness.
| LCP | Page views | Clicks per view | Engaged time | Avg scroll |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Good | 1 | 2.00 | 20.6 s | 39% |
| Needs improvement | 1 | 1.00 | 29.5 s | 50% |
| Poor | 1 | 0.00 | 21.3 s | 51% |
Biggest changes vs previous 24h
| Measure | Previous | Now | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| p75 TTFB · Server wait | 590 ms | 2.61 s | ▲ 343% |
| p75 TTFB | 681 ms | 2.97 s | ▲ 336% |
| p75 TTFB · TLS | 59 ms | 222 ms | ▲ 273% |
| p75 LCP · Load delay | 110 ms | 394 ms | ▲ 258% |
| p75 CLS | 0.02 | 0.08 | ▲ 231% |
| p75 FCP | 1.18 s | 3.89 s | ▲ 229% |
| p75 LCP | 1.21 s | 3.91 s | ▲ 223% |
| p75 TTFB · Connect | 60 ms | 168 ms | ▲ 181% |
| p75 LCP · Load time | 510 ms | 1.15 s | ▲ 126% |
| p75 LCP · Render delay | 528 ms | 941 ms | ▲ 78% |
| p75 INP | 343 ms | 155 ms | ▼ 55% |
| p75 INP · Input delay | 86 ms | 39 ms | ▼ 55% |