> ## Documentation Index > Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.vortexiq.ai/llms.txt > Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further. # All CWV Pass, Website Performance (PageSpeed + CrUX) > All CWV Pass for Website Performance (PageSpeed + CrUX) stores. Tracked live in Vortex IQ Nerve Centre. How to read it, why it matters, and how to act on it. **Metrics type:** [Supporting Metrics](/nerve-centre/overview#metrics-types-explained) • **Category:** [Website Performance](/nerve-centre/connectors#connectors-by-type) ## At a glance > **Per-URL pass/fail status across all three Core Web Vitals simultaneously.** A URL passes only if **all three** of LCP, INP, and CLS meet Google's "good" thresholds; failing any single CWV fails the row. **The unified per-URL CWV ledger** that pairs with the three per-URL rankings ([`psi_slowest_lcp_urls`](/nerve-centre/kpi-cards/website-performance/slowest-lcp-urls), [`psi_worst_inp_urls`](/nerve-centre/kpi-cards/website-performance/worst-inp-urls), [`psi_worst_cls_urls`](/nerve-centre/kpi-cards/website-performance/worst-cls-urls)) to surface "which URLs pass everything" vs "which URLs need work". Critical for pre-launch readiness gating: a URL passing all three CWVs is launch-ready; failing any one is not. | | | | -------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | **What it counts** | List of audited URLs with: pass/fail status for each CWV individually, the all-three composite (pass only if all three pass), traffic share, and the dragging metric(s) for failed URLs. | | **Sample type** | **Lab data** primarily (synthetic per-URL audits); field data overlay where CrUX URL-level is available for high-traffic URLs. | | **The "all-three" gate** | A URL must satisfy: LCP ≤ 2500ms AND INP ≤ 200ms AND CLS ≤ 0.1. **Failing any one fails the gate**; partial passes don't count. This matches Google's CWV pass-rate calculation, so the per-URL view aligns with the origin-level [`psi_cwv_pass_rate`](/nerve-centre/kpi-cards/website-performance/speed-test-pass-rate) headline. | | **Why all-three matters commercially** | Google's CWV ranking signal is binary at the URL level: pass or fail. A page passing 2 of 3 CWVs gets the same ranking treatment as a page passing 0 of 3 (failure). The dichotomy means: brands optimising should target the worst-failing CWV first to flip the URL from fail to pass; partial improvements that don't cross the threshold deliver no ranking benefit. | | **The pre-launch gate** | For BC merchants approaching go-live, this card answers "which URLs are ready and which aren't?" Recommended pre-launch threshold: **80 percent of audited URLs passing all three CWVs**, with no high-traffic URL (>10 percent traffic share) failing. Brands launching below this threshold typically face customer complaints within 7-14 days of launch and ranking degradation within 30-60 days. | | **Currency** | n/a, list with pass/fail flags + per-CWV values. | | **Time window** | `T` (current state); `28D` for field-data validation. | | **Alert trigger** | `> 30 percent of URLs failing all-three` (red) OR `any URL with > 10 percent traffic share failing` (red regardless of overall percentage). | | **Sentiment key** | `psi_cwv_pass` | | **Roles** | owner, marketing, operations | ## Calculation Calculated automatically from your Website Performance (PageSpeed + CrUX) data. See the At a glance summary above for what the metric tracks and the worked example below for a typical reading. ## Worked example A UK-based BigCommerce fashion store, 30-URL audit, mobile, Wednesday 15 May 26. | URL | LCP | INP | CLS | All-3 | Traffic | Dragging metric | | ------------------------------------ | --------: | ------: | -----: | :---: | ------: | ------------------- | | `/` (homepage) | 4,820ms ❌ | 380ms ❌ | 0.21 ❌ | **❌** | 22% | All three (urgent) | | `/products/spring-floral-maxi-dress` | 5,820ms ❌ | 220ms ❌ | 0.18 ❌ | **❌** | 8.4% | All three (urgent) | | `/products/leather-tote-bag` | 4,480ms ❌ | 240ms ❌ | 0.20 ❌ | **❌** | 6.8% | All three | | `/collections/new-arrivals` | 4,610ms ❌ | 480ms ❌ | 0.24 ❌ | **❌** | 12.0% | All three | | `/collections/sale` | 4,180ms ❌ | 460ms ❌ | 0.22 ❌ | **❌** | 7.8% | All three | | `/collections/dresses` | 3,820ms ❌ | 420ms ❌ | 0.16 ❌ | **❌** | 9.2% | All three | | `/cart` | 2,180ms ✅ | 220ms ❌ | 0.04 ✅ | **❌** | 8.0% | INP only | | `/checkout` | 1,940ms ✅ | 180ms ✅ | 0.04 ✅ | **✅** | 4.0% | Passes all | | `/about` | 3,420ms ❌ | 180ms ✅ | 0.32 ❌ | **❌** | 0.8% | LCP + CLS | | `/contact` | 2,380ms ✅ | 160ms ✅ | 0.28 ❌ | **❌** | 0.5% | CLS only | | ... (20 more URLs analysed) | | | | | | | | **Summary** | | | | | | | | URLs passing all 3 | | | | | | **3 of 30 (10%)** | | Top-traffic URLs failing | | | | | | **6 of top 6 fail** | | Pre-launch readiness | | | | | | **NOT READY** | What the per-URL pass/fail view is telling us: 1. **Only 10 percent of audited URLs pass all three CWVs.** This is below the 80 percent pre-launch threshold by a wide margin. **The site is not ready to ship**: at this state, post-launch traffic will hit a site Google's algorithm classifies as failing CWV across most surfaces. 2. **All 6 of the top-traffic URLs fail.** The homepage, top-2 PDPs, and top-3 collection pages all fail all-three CWV. **Top-traffic failures are more damaging than tail failures**: 22 percent of mobile traffic hits the failing homepage; 8 percent hits the failing PDP; failures here directly cost ranking and conversion. 3. **Cart and checkout passes/near-passes are the silver lining.** Checkout passes all three (✅); cart fails only on INP (single dragging metric). These pages are positioned for healthy CWV; the merchant should not destabilise them while fixing other pages. 4. **About and Contact (low traffic) fail differently.** About has bad LCP + CLS (banner image without aspect-ratio + cookie banner shift); Contact has only CLS failure (cookie banner). **A single global cookie-banner repositioning fix passes both pages**, taking the all-three pass count from 3/30 → 5/30 in 30 minutes of work. 5. **Pattern recognition: 6 of 6 top-traffic URLs fail all three.** The same dominant causes (hero image weight, filter widget cost, missing aspect-ratio CSS) appear across all of them. **One template-level optimisation cycle** (covered in [`psi_image_optimisation`](/nerve-centre/kpi-cards/website-performance/image-optimisation), [`psi_render_blocking`](/nerve-centre/kpi-cards/website-performance/render-blocking-resources), [`psi_worst_cls_urls`](/nerve-centre/kpi-cards/website-performance/worst-cls-urls), [`psi_worst_inp_urls`](/nerve-centre/kpi-cards/website-performance/worst-inp-urls)) can flip many URLs simultaneously. 6. **Estimated post-fix-cycle pass rate**: implementing the four-week optimisation sequence detailed across the per-URL ranking cards lifts the all-three pass rate from 10 percent → 70-85 percent. **Crosses the 80 percent pre-launch threshold**; site becomes launch-ready. 7. **Commercial impact estimation**: at current 10 percent pass rate, the site is leaking \~1-3 ranking positions on competitive queries (CWV penalty band) and \~10-20 percent of mobile sessions are bouncing due to performance perception. At post-fix 80 percent pass rate, both penalties largely disappear; estimated organic traffic recovery 8-15 percent over 60-90 days. The diagnostic flow when this card flags failing: 1. **Categorise URLs by failure pattern.** All-three-failing URLs have systemic issues; single-CWV-failing URLs have specific issues with cleaner fixes. 2. **Concentrate on top-traffic failing URLs first.** Per-URL passing rate matters less than weighted-traffic passing rate. 3. **Apply template-level fixes when patterns repeat.** The same dominant cause across multiple URLs implies template work, not per-URL work. 4. **Re-audit after each fix-cycle.** Confirm URLs flip from fail to pass; track the 80 percent threshold. 5. **For pre-launch, gate the launch on the threshold.** Don't launch with under 80 percent pass rate plus no top-traffic URL failing. Rapid-response playbook: | Time horizon | Action | | ------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | First 1 hour after audit | Identify top-traffic failing URLs; categorise their failure patterns. | | First week | Apply template-level fixes for the dominant patterns. | | Day 28 | Field-data CWV pass rate fully reflects fixes. Re-evaluate launch readiness. | | Day 60+ | Organic search ranking recovery shows in GSC reports. | ## Sibling cards merchants should reference together | Card | Why merchants reach for it | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | [`psi_cwv_pass_rate`](/nerve-centre/kpi-cards/website-performance/speed-test-pass-rate) | Origin-level all-three pass rate; this card decomposes per URL. | | [`psi_slowest_lcp_urls`](/nerve-centre/kpi-cards/website-performance/slowest-lcp-urls) | Per-URL LCP ranking; drill-down for LCP-failing URLs. | | [`psi_worst_inp_urls`](/nerve-centre/kpi-cards/website-performance/worst-inp-urls) | Per-URL INP ranking. | | [`psi_worst_cls_urls`](/nerve-centre/kpi-cards/website-performance/worst-cls-urls) | Per-URL CLS ranking. | | [`psi_biggest_regression`](/nerve-centre/kpi-cards/website-performance/biggest-regression) | URLs whose CWV pass status flipped recently. | | [`crux_lcp_p75`](/nerve-centre/kpi-cards/website-performance/page-load-speed) | Origin-level LCP. | | [`crux_inp_p75`](/nerve-centre/kpi-cards/website-performance/click-responsiveness) | Origin-level INP. | | [`crux_cls_p75`](/nerve-centre/kpi-cards/website-performance/layout-stability) | Origin-level CLS. | | [`psi_perf_score_summary`](/nerve-centre/kpi-cards/website-performance/performance-score-summary) | Lab composite; correlates with field CWV pass rate. | | [GSC `gsc_mobile_usable_pages`](/nerve-centre/google_search_console/gsc_mobile_usable_pages) | Mobile usability is a separate Google ranking signal that pairs with CWV. | ## Reconciling against the vendor's own dashboard **Where to look:** * **[Google Search Console → Core Web Vitals](https://search.google.com/search-console)**, the canonical view for which URL groups Google considers passing or failing CWV. * **[PageSpeed Insights](https://pagespeed.web.dev)**, per-URL pass/fail at the field-data level for high-traffic URLs. * **[CrUX URL-level dataset](https://github.com/GoogleChrome/CrUX#crux-on-bigquery)**, per-URL CWV measurements for high-traffic URLs. **Why the Vortex IQ pass/fail may differ from GSC:** | Reason | Direction | What to do | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | --------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Lab vs field.** Vortex IQ uses lab measurements per URL; GSC uses field-data CrUX. | Field is truth source for ranking | Use GSC for ranking-impact decisions; this card for engineering iteration. | | **URL granularity.** GSC groups URLs by similarity; Vortex IQ shows per-URL. | Different aggregation | The grouped view is faster to scan; the per-URL view is more actionable. | | **Window timing.** Vortex IQ refreshes daily; GSC uses 28-day rolling CrUX. | Vortex IQ **leads** GSC | Use Vortex IQ for early signal; GSC for confirmation. | **Cross-connector reconciliation:** primarily internal (with [`psi_cwv_pass_rate`](/nerve-centre/kpi-cards/website-performance/speed-test-pass-rate), [`crux_lcp_p75`](/nerve-centre/kpi-cards/website-performance/page-load-speed), [`crux_inp_p75`](/nerve-centre/kpi-cards/website-performance/click-responsiveness), [`crux_cls_p75`](/nerve-centre/kpi-cards/website-performance/layout-stability)). **Quick rule for support tickets:** if a merchant says *"my GSC report shows my pages passing CWV but your card shows them failing"*, the most common cause is lab-vs-field divergence. Real users on real devices may experience worse CWV than lab emulation, OR the lab profile may be stricter than the average real-user case. The truth source for ranking is GSC; the truth source for engineering iteration is this card. ## Known limitations / merchant FAQs **Only 3 of 30 URLs pass all three CWV. Is that bad?** Yes; the site is in the failing band. Google's CWV ranking signal kicks in below 75 percent origin pass rate; at 10 percent (3/30), the site is well into the failing zone and paying ranking penalty on competitive queries. **Recommended action**: focused 4-week optimisation cycle to lift to 75-85 percent before considering the site ranking-stable. **My checkout passes everything but my homepage fails. Should I worry?** Yes. Homepage failures are more commercially damaging than checkout failures because: (1) homepage handles brand search and direct visit traffic; (2) checkout traffic is captive (already converting); (3) Google weights homepage CWV heavily for site-level signal. **Fix the homepage first**; checkout's healthy state should be protected from regression but doesn't need optimisation work. **What threshold should I use as a launch gate?** 80 percent of audited URLs passing all-three, with no top-traffic URL (>10 percent share) failing. Brands launching below this typically face customer complaints + ranking degradation within 30-60 days. Brands at 90+ percent launch confidently; brands at 70-79 percent have risk but can manage with active monitoring; brands below 70 percent should not launch. **Why does the same URL show different pass status in GSC vs Vortex IQ?** Lab-vs-field divergence. GSC shows field data (real users); Vortex IQ shows lab data (synthetic emulation). Real users may experience better OR worse CWV than emulation depending on device + network mix. **For ranking decisions, trust GSC**; for engineering iteration, trust this card. **Can I get to 100 percent passing?** Theoretically yes; commercially diminishing returns. Brands at 85-95 percent typically operate productively. Pushing the last 5 percent often requires architectural-level work (server-side rendering, edge functions, custom CDN) that exceeds the marginal benefit. **My pass rate is 75 percent. Is that good enough?** Just barely. 75 percent is the threshold where Google's CWV ranking signal flips from penalty to neutral. **Operating at exactly 75 percent is risky**: a single bad deploy can drop you below threshold and back into penalty. **Build a 5-10 percent cushion**: target 80-85 percent operating state. **Can Vortex IQ tell me how to flip a specific URL from failing to passing?** Indirectly. The card identifies which CWV(s) are dragging each failing URL; the per-CWV cards ([`crux_lcp_p75`](/nerve-centre/kpi-cards/website-performance/page-load-speed), etc.) and per-URL ranking cards explain the fix. The Vortex Mind Pre-Launch Readiness report assembles these into a per-URL action plan. **Why does Google care so much about CWV?** User experience research. Google's data shows CWV failures correlate with bounce rate, low engagement, and reduced search satisfaction. **CWV is a proxy for user experience quality**, weighted into ranking because Google wants to show users to fast, stable, responsive pages. Failing CWV signals "this page provides a degraded experience"; ranking signal reflects that. *** ### Tracked live in Vortex IQ Nerve Centre *All CWV Pass* is one of hundreds of KPI pulses Vortex IQ tracks across Website Performance (PageSpeed + CrUX) and 70+ other ecommerce connectors. Nerve Centre runs the detection layer; Vortex Mind investigates the cause when something moves; Ask Viq lets you interrogate any number in plain English. [Start for free](https://app.vortexiq.ai/login) or [book a demo](https://www.vortexiq.ai/contact-us) to see this metric running on your own data.