Are Core Web Vitals Really a Ranking Factor in Google?

What is the true function of Core Web Vitals according to Google?

Martin Splitt says it plainly: Core Web Vitals are a diagnostic tool, not a direct ranking lever. Their usefulness is concentrated on identifying performance issues that degrade user experience.

Contrary to what many imagine, improving a CWV score by a few points triggers no automatic algorithmic reward. There is no linear correlation between a CWV score and a SERP position.

Why does this confusion persist in the SEO community?

The initial announcement of the Page Experience Update created a major misunderstanding. Google presented Core Web Vitals as a "ranking signal", which naturally led people to believe it had direct weight in the algorithm.

The reality? This signal functions more like a negative filter than a positive multiplier. A catastrophic site can be penalized, but a site that goes from good to excellent gains nothing in terms of pure ranking.

How should you interpret the "good," "needs improvement," and "poor" thresholds?

These thresholds are qualitative indicators for monitoring a site's technical health. Moving from green to dark green changes absolutely nothing on the SEO side.

Google uses these metrics to detect frankly degraded experiences — ones that would make a user leave. Everything else falls under UX optimization, not ranking.

• Core Web Vitals are not proportional to ranking — improving a score by a few points changes nothing in your positions
• Their primary function is diagnostic: spotting critical performance issues
• The thresholds serve to identify degraded experiences, not reward marginal optimizations
• Unlike backlinks or content, there is no "SEO premium" for an ultra-fast site vs a simply fast site
• The confusion stems from the initial announcement that spoke of a "ranking signal" without clarifying its real weight

Is this statement consistent with what we observe in the field?

Absolutely. Large-scale A/B tests have never demonstrated direct, measurable SEO impact from marginal CWV optimizations. A site that goes from 85 to 95 in LCP sees no statistically significant movement in the SERPs.

On the other hand — and this is where it gets tricky — sites with catastrophic CWV scores (systematically red scores) can indeed suffer a visible penalty. The signal works as a minimum threshold, not as a gradual ladder.

What nuances should be applied to Google's position?

Let's be honest: Martin Splitt simplifies to avoid misunderstandings, but reality is more complex. CWV impacts SEO indirectly through behavioral signals.

A slow site generates more bounces, less session time, less engagement — all signals that Google can interpret as a lack of relevance. [To verify]: Google officially denies using bounce rate, but real-world correlations suggest that something in that direction exists.

Another point: in ultra-competitive sectors where the top 10 results are evenly matched on content, even the smallest differentiating signal counts. Saying CWV serve no purpose in these cases would be a strategic error.

In what contexts does this rule not apply?

First case: e-commerce sites with ultra-competitive product pages. If 50 sites sell exactly the same product with similar descriptions, user experience becomes the only real differentiator. CWV then play an indirect but crucial role.

Second case: mobile searches in geographic areas with poor connectivity. Google has confirmed that mobile speed carries more weight in these contexts — even if it's not strictly related to CWV.

What should you concretely do with Core Web Vitals?

Stop chasing micro-optimizations to eke out 2 score points. Focus your efforts on blocking issues: pages that far exceed thresholds, frankly degraded experiences, massive technical errors.

Use CWV as a health dashboard, not as an SEO KPI. If a page turns red, investigate. If it stays green, move on — your time will be better spent on content or internal linking.

What mistakes should you avoid in managing Core Web Vitals?

First common mistake: sacrificing UX or functionality to improve a CWV score. Removing a carousel because it impacts CLS, when it converts, is absurd.

Second mistake: believing that a perfect lab score will translate to a perfect field score. Field data (CrUX) is the only data that matters to Google, and it's unpredictable — you don't control your users' connections.

Third mistake: completely ignoring CWV under the pretext that "it does nothing for SEO." Poor UX = poor conversion rate = business problem, even if Google leaves you alone.

How can you verify that your CWV strategy is balanced?

Ask yourself this question: am I optimizing for Google or for my users? If the answer leans too much toward Google, you're on the wrong track.

Regularly check CrUX data (not local Lighthouse scores). If you're in the green on most of your traffic, move on to something else. If you're in the red, investigate root causes — but don't aim for perfection.

• Monitor Core Web Vitals through Google Search Console and CrUX — not Lighthouse locally
• Identify and fix pages with frankly degraded scores (red)
• Don't waste time optimizing a score from 85 to 95 — no measurable SEO impact
• Prioritize issues that affect real user experience, not theoretical scores
• Use CWV as a diagnostic tool, not as a ranking objective
• Balance CWV and functionality — never sacrifice a conversion for 2 score points
• Focus your SEO resources on content, backlinks, and authority — not marginal CWV micro-optimizations