AVIF vs WebP
AVIF and WebP are the two modern image formats supported by all current major browsers. AVIF usually compresses photos further; WebP encodes much faster, has a stronger lossless mode and works in slightly more software.
Short answer
For photos where the smallest download matters, AVIF usually wins and is worth the slower encoding. For graphics, screenshots, fast batch workflows and broader compatibility, WebP is the more practical choice. Many sites serve AVIF with a WebP or JPG fallback.
| AVIF | WebP | |
|---|---|---|
| Underlying codec | AV1 (2018 video codec) | VP8 for lossy, custom codec for lossless |
| Compression | Lossy and lossless | Lossy and lossless |
| Quality at small sizes | Holds detail better; smooths fine texture | Softer; can show blur and color smearing |
| Transparency | Yes, as a separate alpha image | Yes, 8-bit alpha |
| Animation | Yes, less tooling | Yes, widely supported |
| File size for photos | Usually smaller than WebP | Larger than AVIF, smaller than JPG |
| File size for graphics | Lossless mode often larger | Lossless mode is usually smaller |
| Color and HDR | 8–12 bit, HDR and wide gamut | 8-bit only |
| Encoding speed | Slow; seconds per large photo | Fast |
| Browser support | Chrome, Edge, Firefox, Safari 16+ | Chrome, Edge, Firefox, Safari 14+ |
Compression: a generation apart
WebP’s lossy mode comes from VP8, a video codec from around 2010. AVIF uses AV1, finished in 2018, which has far more block sizes, prediction modes and post-filters to choose from. That extra toolbox lets AVIF describe the same photo in fewer bytes, especially at the lower file sizes websites aim for.
AVIF can also store 10-bit and 12-bit color with HDR, and full-resolution color channels, while WebP is limited to 8-bit color with halved color resolution in lossy mode. For HDR photos, wide-gamut product shots or images with fine red and blue detail, that gap is real.
The picture flips for lossless images. WebP’s lossless codec was designed specifically for graphics and usually beats AVIF’s lossless mode on screenshots, icons and diagrams.
Speed and practicality
Encoding AVIF is much slower than encoding WebP, often seconds rather than a fraction of a second for a large photo. That rarely matters for a handful of hero images, but it adds up when converting thousands of files or generating images on demand. Decoding is fast for both, so visitors don’t notice.
WebP has been supported for longer, so more editors, content systems and upload forms accept it. AVIF support outside browsers has improved but still varies.
Which should I use?
A few typical cases:
- Large hero and gallery photos on a performance-focused site: AVIF, made with Convert to AVIF
- Screenshots, diagrams and UI graphics: lossless WebP
- Hundreds of images converted in one go on a deadline: WebP with Convert to WebP
- HDR photography: AVIF
- Animated stickers or short loops: WebP, for wider tool support
- An AVIF that a tool won’t accept: AVIF to WebP or AVIF to JPG
Switch between AVIF and WebP
Questions
Is AVIF always smaller than WebP?
Not always. For most photos at web quality AVIF is smaller, often clearly so. For simple graphics, very high quality settings or lossless images, WebP can match or beat it. Testing a few representative images is the best way to decide.
Do all browsers support AVIF and WebP in 2026?
Yes, all current major browsers display both. WebP arrived earlier, so it also works on somewhat older browser versions, such as Safari 14 and 15, which don’t show AVIF. For very old devices, a JPG fallback covers both cases.
Should I serve both formats?
If you have a build step or image service, serving AVIF with a WebP or JPG fallback through the HTML picture element gives the smallest files to most visitors and a safe fallback for the rest. If you want one format only, WebP is simpler; AVIF gives smaller photos.
Why does AVIF quality 60 look as good as WebP 85?
Quality numbers are encoder-specific scales, not percentages of anything shared between formats. AVIF’s scale is tuned differently, so a lower number can produce similar visual quality. Compare results by eye or with a similarity measure rather than by the number.