WebP vs JPG
WebP was built to replace JPG on the web. It usually makes smaller photo files at similar visual quality and adds transparency and animation, while JPG remains the format every program and upload form accepts.
Short answer
For images on your own website, WebP is the better choice: every current browser supports it and photos are often 25–35% smaller than JPG at similar quality. For files you send to other people, print or upload to forms, JPG is still the safer choice because it opens everywhere.
| WebP | JPG | |
|---|---|---|
| Compression | Lossy (block prediction) or a separate lossless mode | Lossy only, 8×8 DCT blocks |
| Quality at high compression | Softens and blurs detail | Blocky areas and halos around edges |
| Transparency | Yes, even in lossy mode | No |
| Animation | Yes | No |
| File size for photos | Often 25–35% smaller at similar quality | Baseline |
| File size for graphics | Much smaller in lossless mode | Poor fit; artifacts around text |
| Browser support | All current browsers (Safari 14+) | Universal, including very old browsers |
| Software and upload forms | Mostly supported; some older tools and forms reject it | Accepted virtually everywhere |
| Metadata | EXIF and XMP possible, often omitted | EXIF standard from cameras |
| Best for | Web pages and apps | Sharing, printing, forms, archives |
Where WebP’s savings come from
JPG compresses each 8×8 block on its own. WebP first predicts each block from pixels it has already decoded next to it, and stores only the difference, which is usually smaller. It also uses a more efficient entropy coder and a filter that smooths block boundaries. Together, those make the same photo cost fewer bytes.
The trade-off shows at very high compression. JPG fails with visible blocks; WebP fails by looking soft or slightly smeared. WebP also always stores color at half resolution, so very fine colored detail, such as thin red text on a photo, can look a little less crisp than in a high-quality JPG with full color.
Which should I use?
Ask where the image is going:
- Photos on your own website or blog: WebP, created with JPG to WebP
- Product images with a cut-out background: WebP, which keeps transparency at a small size
- Photos to attach to an email or send to family: JPG
- Job application, visa or government upload form: JPG unless WebP is explicitly listed
- Photo prints or photo books: JPG
- A WebP you saved from a website and can’t open in an editor: WebP to JPG
Switching a site from JPG to WebP
Converting your JPGs to WebP re-encodes them, so a small amount of detail is approximated again. Start from the best originals you have, not from already heavily compressed JPGs. Keep the JPGs as masters in case you want to re-export at a different quality or to AVIF later.
Because all current browsers handle WebP, most sites no longer need a JPG fallback for visitors. You may still want one for tools that fetch your images outside a browser, such as some email clients, link preview services and older content systems.
Switch between WebP and JPG
JPG to WEBP
Make photos lighter for your website by converting JPG to WebP.
CONVERT · WEBP → JPGWEBP to JPG
Saved an image from a website and it won’t open, attach or upload?
COMPRESS · WEBPCompress WEBP
Re-encode WebP images at the quality you choose to make them lighter for the web.
COMPRESS · JPGCompress JPG
Shrink JPG photos with MozJPEG, an encoder tuned for smaller files at the same visual quality.
Questions
Is WebP better quality than JPG?
At the same file size, WebP usually looks better, because it spends its bytes more efficiently. At the same quality, it is usually smaller. At very high quality settings the two look almost identical, and the size advantage of WebP shrinks.
Why won’t a WebP image open on my computer?
Some older programs and operating system versions don’t include a WebP decoder. Current Windows Photos and macOS Preview do. The quickest fix is converting the file to JPG, which works in every program; Pixellin does that in your browser without uploading it.
Does converting JPG to WebP lose quality?
Slightly, because the image is encoded with lossy compression a second time. At WebP quality 80–85, the difference is rarely visible. Avoid converting back and forth repeatedly, and keep the original JPG if you might need it later.
Should I upload WebP images to social media?
Many platforms accept WebP but re-compress uploads anyway, so the size advantage disappears. JPG is the more predictable choice for social posts. Use WebP where you control how the image is served, such as your own site.