JPG vs WEBP: should you switch?

What's actually different

WEBP was developed by Google and released in 2010. It uses more sophisticated compression than JPG's 30-year-old algorithm. The result: similar visual quality at 25–35% smaller file sizes for photos, and up to 26% smaller for lossless images compared to PNG.

Both formats support lossy compression. WEBP also supports lossless compression and transparency (alpha channel), which JPG does not. WEBP can store animations, which JPG cannot.

Browser support

As of 2024, WEBP is supported by every major browser: Chrome, Firefox, Safari (since version 14), Edge, and Opera. This covers over 97% of global web users. The "WEBP isn't supported everywhere" concern that was valid in 2018 is no longer a practical barrier.

Where WEBP still has gaps: some older image editing software, older operating systems, and niche workflows that rely on JPG compatibility. Windows 10 can display WEBP natively; earlier versions may require a codec.

File size comparison

When to switch to WEBP

Switch to WEBP if you're serving images on a website and page load speed matters. The savings compound: a product page with 15 images saves 500 KB to 1 MB per load. That directly affects Core Web Vitals scores, which affect search ranking.

WEBP also makes sense if you want transparency without PNG's larger file size. A WEBP with transparency is typically 20–30% smaller than the same image as PNG.

When to stay with JPG

For photos you're sharing via email, messaging apps, or social media, JPG is usually fine. Most platforms re-compress images on upload anyway, so the format you submit matters less than the initial quality and dimensions.

If your workflow involves tools that don't support WEBP (older Photoshop versions, certain CMS platforms, print workflows), stick with JPG to avoid compatibility friction.

For archiving photos you plan to edit later, neither JPG nor WEBP is ideal. Use a lossless format (PNG, TIFF) or your camera's RAW format. Both JPG and WEBP are lossy by default.

Converting between formats

Converting an existing JPG to WEBP will reduce file size, but it won't recover quality lost during the original JPG compression. The existing artifacts come along for the ride. For best results, convert from the original high-quality source.

Converting WEBP back to JPG is straightforward and useful when you need broader compatibility or are working with software that doesn't read WEBP.