←  All terms
I
Performance

Interaction to Next Paint

Interaction to Next Paint measures page responsiveness using the latency of observed user interactions.

Interaction to Next Paint measures page responsiveness using the latency of observed user interactions. Optimization becomes meaningful when real-user data, repeatable lab tests, and an explicit performance budget are used together. The concept is closely related to Core Web Vitals and JavaScript.

Read more

Core Web Vitals

JavaScript

Website Performance

FAQ

Interaction to Next Paint

How is Interaction to Next Paint measured?
Field values come from the Chrome User Experience Report, PageSpeed Insights, and Search Console; custom real-user monitoring enables per-page analysis. Labs lack real user interaction, so Total Blocking Time often serves as a proxy there. The combination is reliable: field data for assessment, lab tests for root-cause analysis.
What typically worsens Interaction to Next Paint?
Usually extensive JavaScript blocks the main thread: long tasks, heavy event handlers, third-party scripts, and large DOM structures. The browser then cannot process input immediately or paint the result. Less and split-up code, deferred loading of third-party scripts, and lean handlers improve the value.
How does INP differ from FID?
FID measured only the delay of the first interaction until processing started. INP considers all interactions during a visit and the time until the next visible update. It is therefore stricter and closer to perceived responsiveness. INP replaced FID as a Core Web Vital in March 2024.
What value counts as good for Interaction to Next Paint?
An INP value of 200 milliseconds or less counts as good. Assessment happens at the 75th percentile of field data, meaning real visits. At least three quarters of page views must therefore meet this threshold. Lab values help with debugging but do not replace measurement with real users.