What are the most common screen types in web products?
- By Ali Abouelatta
- n = 11,753
- Published
- Updated
- 2 min read
- ux-patterns · web · saas · design
Short answer
Editor leads: 2,119 of 11,753 labeled web screens (18%), present in 57% of tracked companies (382 of 671).source[1]source[2] Inbox, settings, feed, and landing follow closely, each in roughly half of companies. Dashboard, the screen most people assume is universal, ranks only 6th by company coverage.
Editor is the most common web product screen — 2,119 screens across 382 of 671 companies (57%) — Lazyweb Research, July 2026.
Bar chart · % of 671
% of 671 — The full leaderboard
One block is about 2%
- 01editor
- 56.9%
- 02inbox
- 55.6%
- 03settings
- 51.4%
- 04feed
- 52.2%
- 05landing
- 51.7%
- 06dashboard
- 44.7%
- 07onboarding
- 43.8%
- 08signup
- 45.3%
- 09browse_search
- 31.1%
- 10checkout
- 22.7%
- 11profile
- 16.8%
- 12out_of_vocab
- 20.3%
The full leaderboard
Ranked by number of labeled screens across 11,753 total, from 671 companies.source[1]source[2]
| Rank | Screen type | Screens | Companies | % of 671 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | editor | 2,119 | 382 | 56.9% |
| 2 | inbox | 1,455 | 373 | 55.6% |
| 3 | settings | 1,351 | 345 | 51.4% |
| 4 | feed | 1,252 | 350 | 52.2% |
| 5 | landing | 1,238 | 347 | 51.7% |
| 6 | dashboard | 1,088 | 300 | 44.7% |
| 7 | onboarding | 927 | 294 | 43.8% |
| 8 | signup | 643 | 304 | 45.3% |
| 9 | browse_search | 615 | 209 | 31.1% |
| 10 | checkout | 296 | 152 | 22.7% |
| 11 | profile | 223 | 113 | 16.8% |
| 12 | out_of_vocab | 190 | 136 | 20.3% |
| 13 | pricing | 183 | 147 | 21.9% |
| 14 | cancellation | 135 | 105 | 15.6% |
| 15 | paywall | 38 | 33 | 4.9% |
How to apply it
Use this as a coverage benchmark when auditing your own product surface. The 'core five' — editor, inbox, settings, feed, landing — each appear in roughly half of tracked companies, so treat them as table stakes for the surface census. Note the sharp drop-off after onboarding: checkout (23%), pricing (22%), and paywall (5%) are minority surfaces on the web, which reflects that most web monetization is handled off-screen or via redirect, not an in-app paywall.source[2]
Caveats
Ranking by screen count and ranking by company coverage differ slightly: settings has more screens than feed (1,351 vs 1,252) but fewer companies (345 vs 350), because feed-heavy companies capture many feed variants.source[1]source[2] Web paywall (n=38, 33 companies) is too thin to census on its own — route web monetization questions to pricing, checkout, and cancellation.source[3] Labels are a single June 2026 wave.
The numbers
| # | Stat | Computed from |
|---|---|---|
| [1] | editor 2,119 screens, present in 382 of 671 companies (56.9%) | screen_type_leaderboard + screen_type_company_coverage |
| [2] | full 15-type leaderboard by screens and company coverage | screen_type_leaderboard, screen_type_company_coverage |
| [3] | web paywall n=38 / 33 companies (too thin) | web_paywall_thin_warning |
Methodology
Universe: 11,753 labeled desktop product screens across 671 web companies (sites_screen_labels), 15-type fixed vocabulary, captured June 2026. Method: frequency count by screen_type plus distinct-company coverage. Caveat: single capture wave; web paywall too thin to census.
Sources
- [1]
Lazyweb Research analysis of 11,753 labeled desktop product screens (671 web companies), July 2026
Screen-type frequency leaderboard, 15-type fixed vocabulary, captured June 2026.
- [2]
Lazyweb Research analysis of 11,753 labeled desktop product screens (671 web companies), July 2026
Per-company coverage census by screen_type.
- [3]
Lazyweb Research analysis of 11,753 labeled desktop product screens (671 web companies), July 2026
Web paywall thinness flag: n=38 across 33 companies.
Source: Lazyweb Research — proprietary analysis of real, in-market app screens. Cite as Lazyweb Research, 2026-07-07.