Special offer. See more information about Outbyte and uninstall instructions. Please review EULA and Privacy policy.

iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more

The latest web design statistics point to four practical priorities: improve mobile performance, control page weight, test accessibility beyond automated scans, and choose platforms for fit rather than popularity. The numbers below come from two different studies: the 2025 Web Almanac, based primarily on a July 2025 HTTP Archive crawl, and WebAIM’s automated home-page analysis published in February 2026. Their samples and methods differ, so the figures should not be treated as one combined benchmark.

How to read these web design statistics

The 2025 Web Almanac is grounded in HTTP Archive measurements. Its overview says more than 16 million websites were tested and 244 TB of data processed; most measurements use the July 2025 dataset. Its URL set is drawn from Chrome UX Report, which reflects real-world Chrome-user data, while HTTP Archive also runs controlled lab tests. In the described 2025 setup, mobile tests used an emulated Moto G4, a 4G-equivalent connection, and U.S. Google Cloud locations; desktop tests used a Linux virtual machine and a cable-equivalent connection. The lab generally tested a home page and one secondary page, not every page or user state.

WebAIM’s February 2026 report, by contrast, used WAVE to automatically evaluate rendered versions of one million top-ranked home pages. Its findings describe detected errors in that sample, not every site on the web. These differences matter: the reports measure different page sets, with different tools, and their accessibility and performance figures are not directly interchangeable.

Free tools Windows power users keep installed

One-click scans. No signup required.

Special offer. See more information about Outbyte and uninstall instructions. Please review EULA and Privacy policy.

Performance: mobile sites have more room to improve

Core Web Vitals summarize loading, interactivity, and visual stability. The Web Almanac treats Largest Contentful Paint (LCP) of 2.5 seconds or less, Interaction to Next Paint (INP) of 200 milliseconds or less, and Cumulative Layout Shift (CLS) of 0.1 or less as good thresholds. Its 2025 results show that fewer than half of mobile sites met the combined good threshold.

#1 Best Overall
Sale
HTML and CSS: Design and Build Websites
  • HTML CSS Design and Build Web Sites
  • Comes with secure packaging
  • It can be a gift option

Core Web Vitals by device, year, and site tier

Comparison Finding
Mobile sites with good Core Web Vitals 48% in the 2025 Web Almanac, based primarily on HTTP Archive’s July 2025 crawl.
Desktop sites with good Core Web Vitals 56% in the 2025 Web Almanac, based primarily on HTTP Archive’s July 2025 crawl.
Mobile sites with good Core Web Vitals in the 2021 comparison 32%, reported in the 2025 Web Almanac.
Desktop sites with good Core Web Vitals in the 2021 comparison 41%, reported in the 2025 Web Almanac.
Mobile sites with good Core Web Vitals in the 2024 comparison 44%, reported in the 2025 Web Almanac.
Desktop sites with good Core Web Vitals in the 2024 comparison 55%, reported in the 2025 Web Almanac.
Top 1,000 mobile sites 51% had good Core Web Vitals in the 2025 Web Almanac.
Next 10,000 mobile sites 42% had good Core Web Vitals in the 2025 Web Almanac.
Next 100,000 mobile sites 37% had good Core Web Vitals in the 2025 Web Almanac.
Next 1,000,000 mobile sites 42% had good Core Web Vitals in the 2025 Web Almanac.
Next 10,000,000 mobile sites 48% had good Core Web Vitals in the 2025 Web Almanac.

The top-ranked group did better than several groups immediately below it, but the pattern is not a simple decline by popularity: the next 10 million sites had a higher good rate than the next 100,000. A site’s own page templates and user experience therefore deserve measurement; rank or brand size is not a performance proxy.

Home pages, secondary pages, and LCP

Page or measure Desktop Mobile
Home pages meeting good Core Web Vitals 47% — HTTP Archive, 2025 Web Almanac 45% — HTTP Archive, 2025 Web Almanac
Secondary pages meeting good Core Web Vitals 61% — HTTP Archive, 2025 Web Almanac 56% — HTTP Archive, 2025 Web Almanac
Pages with good LCP 74% — HTTP Archive, 2025 Web Almanac 62% — HTTP Archive, 2025 Web Almanac
Pages with poor LCP 7% — HTTP Archive, 2025 Web Almanac 13% — HTTP Archive, 2025 Web Almanac
Pages whose LCP element was an image 85.3% — HTTP Archive, 2025 Web Almanac 76.0% — HTTP Archive, 2025 Web Almanac
Pages whose LCP element was text 14.4% — HTTP Archive, 2025 Web Almanac 23.7% — HTTP Archive, 2025 Web Almanac
LCP images in JPG format 57% — HTTP Archive, 2025 Web Almanac
LCP images in PNG format 26% — HTTP Archive, 2025 Web Almanac
LCP image served from the same host as the page 51% — HTTP Archive, 2025 Web Almanac 44% — HTTP Archive, 2025 Web Almanac

The gap between desktop and mobile LCP results makes a single blended score less useful for design decisions. Since an image was the LCP element on most pages, examine the actual largest visible content on each important template: image dimensions, file format, delivery, and whether it is prioritized correctly.

How often sites prioritize the LCP resource

Implementation measure Desktop Mobile
Pages preloading LCP resources 2.2% — HTTP Archive, 2025 Web Almanac 2.1% — HTTP Archive, 2025 Web Almanac
Pages using fetchpriority="high" 16.3% — HTTP Archive, 2025 Web Almanac 17.3% — HTTP Archive, 2025 Web Almanac
Pages lazy-loading the LCP image About 16–17% — HTTP Archive, 2025 Web Almanac

These usage rates describe implementation patterns, not guaranteed improvements for every page. In particular, lazy-loading the image that must appear first can delay the largest visible content. Check the browser’s loading sequence and field performance before changing resource hints; preload only a resource that is genuinely critical and otherwise discovered too late.

Special offer. See more information about Outbyte and uninstall instructions. Please review EULA and Privacy policy.

Page weight: images and JavaScript dominate typical home pages

The 2025 Web Almanac reports median home-page transfer weight of 2.6 MB on mobile and 2.9 MB on desktop. The median is a useful planning reference, not a target: it says half the measured pages were lighter and half heavier. The resource breakdown shows why page weight is not just an image-compression problem.

Median home-page weight and change over time

Measure Finding
Mobile home-page weight 2.6 MB median in the 2025 Web Almanac.
Desktop home-page weight 2.9 MB median in the 2025 Web Almanac.
Mobile home-page weight in July 2015 845 KB median, compared with 2,362 KB in July 2025 — HTTP Archive, 2025 Web Almanac.
Mobile home-page weight growth over the decade to July 2025 202.8% — HTTP Archive, 2025 Web Almanac.
Year-over-year mobile home-page weight growth 8.4% — HTTP Archive, 2025 Web Almanac.
Year-over-year desktop home-page weight growth 7.3% — HTTP Archive, 2025 Web Almanac.
Median mobile inner-page weight 1.8 MB in the 2025 Web Almanac.
Mobile inner-page weight growth since measurement began in 2022 27.8% — HTTP Archive, 2025 Web Almanac.
Desktop inner-page weight growth since measurement began in 2022 25.2% — HTTP Archive, 2025 Web Almanac.

What makes up a median home page

Resource type Mobile median Desktop median
Images 911 KB — HTTP Archive, 2025 Web Almanac 1,058 KB — HTTP Archive, 2025 Web Almanac
JavaScript 632 KB — HTTP Archive, 2025 Web Almanac 697 KB — HTTP Archive, 2025 Web Almanac
Fonts 122 KB — HTTP Archive, 2025 Web Almanac 139 KB — HTTP Archive, 2025 Web Almanac
CSS 77 KB — HTTP Archive, 2025 Web Almanac 82 KB — HTTP Archive, 2025 Web Almanac
HTML 22 KB — HTTP Archive, 2025 Web Almanac Not stated for the median desktop home page in the 2025 Web Almanac page-weight figures summarized here.

Requests have also grown: the median was 72 per mobile page and 77 per desktop page in the 2025 Web Almanac, up year over year by 9% on mobile and 8% on desktop. When optimizing, audit the full page rather than only the hero image: unnecessary scripts, third-party embeds, font variants, and duplicate assets can add both bytes and requests. Prioritize by what users need to see and use, then verify the result on the page and device that matter.

Accessibility: automated scans find widespread barriers, but not the whole picture

WebAIM detected WCAG failures on 95.9% of the one million top-ranked home pages it evaluated in February 2026. That is a substantial signal of persistent accessibility problems, but a clean automated report is not proof of conformance. WAVE does not detect every WCAG failure, and an automated scan cannot substitute for keyboard, visual, and assistive-technology testing.

WebAIM Million findings from February 2026

Measure WebAIM result
Home pages evaluated 1,000,000 in WebAIM’s February 2026 analysis.
Distinct detected accessibility errors 56,114,377 across the February 2026 sample.
Average detected errors per home page 56.1 in WebAIM’s February 2026 analysis.
Change in average detected errors from the 2025 analysis 10.1% increase in WebAIM’s February 2026 report.
Page elements in the evaluated pages More than 1.4 billion in WebAIM’s February 2026 analysis.
Average page elements per home page 1,437 in WebAIM’s February 2026 analysis.
Change in average home-page elements from the previous year 14.3% increase in WebAIM’s February 2026 report.
Page elements with a detected accessibility error 3.9% in WebAIM’s February 2026 analysis, which WebAIM describes as about 1 in 26 elements exposing users with disabilities to a detected error.
Sampled home pages with detected WCAG failures 95.9% in WebAIM’s February 2026 analysis, versus 94.8% in its 2025 comparison.
Pages with a defined document language 87.3% in WebAIM’s February 2026 analysis.
English-language pages in the sample 521,826 in WebAIM’s February 2026 analysis.

Use an automated scan as triage: it can reveal recurring errors and help teams prioritize fixes. Then test meaningful user journeys manually. At minimum, move through the page with a keyboard, check visible focus and reading order, inspect labels and instructions in forms, verify headings and landmarks, and test representative flows with screen-reader software. Confirm fixes in context, since a technically present label or alternative text may still be unhelpful.

Special offer. See more information about Outbyte and uninstall instructions. Please review EULA and Privacy policy.

The Web Almanac Accessibility chapter reproduces a point made by Tim Berners-Lee: “The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect.”

Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Support on Ko-Fi

CMS and ecommerce statistics are context, not quality rankings

Platform shares can help a designer understand the ecosystem, but prevalence does not establish that a platform makes a site faster, more accessible, or more suitable. The WebAIM technology comparisons below are observational associations: different sites, teams, templates, content, and implementation choices may account for differences. WebAIM explicitly cautions that the technology alone cannot be said to cause the error rate.

CMS use and detected errors by platform

Platform context Measure
Pages using a CMS 55% of desktop pages and 54% of mobile pages in the 2025 Web Almanac.
WordPress mobile-site share 35% of mobile sites used WordPress in the 2025 Web Almanac; WordPress represented 64% of CMS use.
Adobe Experience Manager 6,572 pages averaged 29.9 detected errors, 46.7% below WebAIM’s overall average, in February 2026.
Squarespace 2,669 pages averaged 33.0 detected errors, 41.2% below WebAIM’s overall average, in February 2026.
Wix 3,183 pages averaged 33.3 detected errors, 40.6% below WebAIM’s overall average, in February 2026.
HubSpot CMS 4,237 pages averaged 35.1 detected errors, 37.4% below WebAIM’s overall average, in February 2026.
TYPO3 5,371 pages averaged 38.5 detected errors, 31.3% below WebAIM’s overall average, in February 2026.
Drupal 18,222 pages averaged 41.2 detected errors, 26.5% below WebAIM’s overall average, in February 2026.
Joomla 3,981 pages averaged 45.7 detected errors, 18.6% below WebAIM’s overall average, in February 2026.
WordPress 252,302 pages averaged 52.8 detected errors, 5.8% below WebAIM’s overall average, in February 2026.
1C-Bitrix 8,769 pages averaged 106.5 detected errors, 89.8% above WebAIM’s overall average, in February 2026.

These are WAVE-detected error counts for the sampled pages, not complete accessibility scores or a controlled platform comparison. Use them as a reminder to inspect the actual theme, components, and editorial workflow you plan to ship—not as a standalone CMS selection rule.

Ecommerce presence in the crawl

Measure Finding
Analyzed desktop sites identified as ecommerce 19.9% in the 2025 Web Almanac.
Analyzed mobile sites identified as ecommerce 19.2% in the 2025 Web Almanac.
Ecommerce adoption among the top 1,000 sites 1% in the 2025 Web Almanac.
Ecommerce adoption among the top 10 million sites 22% on desktop and 21% on mobile in the 2025 Web Almanac.
Ecommerce adoption trend About 17% on desktop and mobile in 2022, rising to about 20% on desktop and 19% on mobile in 2025, according to the Web Almanac.

The difference between the top 1,000 and the broader top 10 million illustrates how strongly adoption depends on which slice of sites is counted. These figures describe identified ecommerce presence, not conversion quality or the performance of any particular commerce platform.

Special offer. See more information about Outbyte and uninstall instructions. Please review EULA and Privacy policy.

What designers should prioritize

  • Measure mobile and desktop separately. Review real-user field data where available and test representative templates in a controlled environment; distinguish home-page results from secondary-page behavior.
  • Inspect the actual largest content and the payload behind it. Images and JavaScript are substantial parts of median home-page weight, so check dimensions, formats, loading priority, scripts, and third-party resources.
  • Use accessibility automation for triage, then test manually. A scan can expose patterns, but does not certify conformance or replace keyboard and assistive-technology checks.
  • Choose platforms against the work you need to do. Compare publishing workflow, design flexibility, component quality, integrations, accessibility controls, and maintainability. Adoption and cross-site error associations do not prove that a platform causes an outcome.

Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.