Format comparison

WebP vs AVIF

Both formats are what Google calls 'next-gen' images. AVIF, based on the AV1 video codec, is newer and compresses harder. WebP is older, faster and supported everywhere. Which one should your site serve in 2026?

Verdict
AVIF wins on raw compression (10–20% smaller than WebP at equal quality) but loses on encode speed, tooling and platform support. WebP is the safe default for every site; AVIF is worth adding as a first `<source>` in `<picture>` when you have an automated pipeline and traffic at scale.

Side by side

WebP vs AVIF: feature comparison

CriterionWebPAVIF
Based onVP8 (2010)AV1 (2019)
Size vs JPEG25–35% smaller40–50% smaller
Encode speedFast (ms)Slow (seconds at high effort)
Decode speedFastSlower on low-end devices
Browser support97%+~93%
CMS / editor supportUniversalPatchy
Transparency, animationYesYes
HDR / 10-bitNoYes
Max dimensions16,383 pxEffectively unlimited (tiled)

Compression and quality

AVIF is the better compressor, especially at low bitrates and on photographic content: it keeps texture where WebP smooths it away. At the quality levels most websites use (roughly q75–q85 equivalents), the gap narrows to about 10–20% in favour of AVIF. On sharp graphics with text, WebP frequently matches or beats AVIF because AVIF's filtering can soften fine lines.

Speed and cost

WebP encodes in milliseconds, which is why it can run in your browser. AVIF at good quality takes 10–100× longer per image and needs serious CPU on the server. Decoding also costs more: on older Android phones, AVIF-heavy pages can actually feel slower despite smaller downloads. If your images are generated on the fly, WebP is far cheaper to operate.

Support in the real world

Browser support for AVIF became solid in 2023 (Safari 16.4, Edge 121). But browsers are only part of the story: WordPress added AVIF uploads only in 6.5 (2024), many image CDNs charge extra for it, email clients ignore it, and design tools often cannot open it. WebP has had a decade to become boring, which is exactly what you want from an image format.

  1. Convert all published images to WebP today; this alone captures most of the performance gain.
  2. If you run a build pipeline or image CDN, add AVIF as the first <source> in <picture> with WebP second and JPEG last.
  3. Always send correct width/height attributes and use loading="lazy" below the fold.
Need WebP versions of your AVIF files?
Convert AVIF to WebP

Try it on your own images

Convert a file to WebP in your browser and compare the size yourself. Free, no upload.

Open the converter

Frequently asked questions

Not soon. AVIF is gaining ground for large photo-heavy sites with automated pipelines, but WebP's speed and universal support make it the default for most websites for years to come.

Yes. Modern browsers decode AVIF, so our AVIF to WebP converter works locally without any upload.

Google treats both as next-gen formats. What matters for ranking is the resulting page speed. Either format clears the PageSpeed audit; WebP is easier to deploy reliably.

More comparisons

WebP vs JPEG

WebP wins for the web. It produces 25–35% smaller files than JPEG at equal visual quality, supports transparency and animation, and is displayed natively by 97%+ of browsers. Keep JPEG only as a fallback for legacy clients or when a platform does not accept WebP.

Read more

WebP vs PNG

Use PNG as a working/source format and WebP for everything you publish. WebP lossless is ~26% smaller than PNG; WebP lossy with alpha is typically 60–80% smaller with no visible difference. Only serve PNG when a platform explicitly requires it.

Read more