Format comparison

WebP vs JPEG

JPEG has been the default photo format since 1992. WebP, released by Google in 2010, was designed to replace it. Here is how they compare on the things that matter: size, quality, features, compatibility and what it means for your website's speed and rankings.

Verdict
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.

Side by side

WebP vs JPEG: feature comparison

CriterionJPEGWebP
Released19922010
Lossy compressionYesYes (better)
Lossless modeNoYes
Transparency (alpha)NoYes
AnimationNoYes
File size at equal qualityBaseline25–35% smaller
Encode speedVery fastFast
Browser support100%97%+
Max dimensions65,535 px16,383 px
Recommended forFallback onlyAll web photos

File size: the 25–35% rule

Google's original WebP study compared 1 million images from the web and found WebP files were 25–34% smaller than JPEGs at equivalent SSIM (structural similarity) scores. Independent tests since then land in the same range. On a page with 1.5 MB of JPEGs, that is roughly 450 KB saved for every visitor, or several seconds on a 3G connection.

Where the savings come from

JPEG splits the image into 8×8 blocks and compresses each independently. WebP, derived from the VP8 video codec, predicts each block from its already-coded neighbours and only stores the difference. It also uses a smarter entropy coder and a deblocking filter that hides compression seams. The result: fewer bytes for the same picture and fewer visible artifacts at low quality.

Image quality

At high quality settings (85+), the two formats are visually indistinguishable; WebP is simply smaller. At aggressive settings (50–70), WebP holds up noticeably better: gradients stay smooth, skies don't band, and edges don't develop JPEG's characteristic 'mosquito noise'. WebP can look slightly softer at very low quality because of its in-loop filtering, which most viewers prefer to blockiness.

Features JPEG never had

  • Transparency: WebP carries an 8-bit alpha channel, so product cut-outs and logos no longer need PNG.
  • Animation: animated WebP replaces GIF at a fraction of the size.
  • Lossless mode: WebP lossless is about 26% smaller than PNG.
  • Metadata: both support EXIF, XMP and ICC profiles (browser converters typically strip EXIF).

Browser and platform support

WebP has been in Chrome since 2010, Firefox and Edge since 2019, and Safari since macOS Big Sur / iOS 14 in 2020. Per Can I use(opens in new tab), global support exceeds 97%. WordPress accepts WebP uploads natively since 5.8, Shopify, Squarespace, Wix and Webflow all serve it. The only relevant holdouts are Internet Explorer and some email clients, both of which are best handled with a JPEG fallback.

Serving JPEG as a fallback

Use the HTML <picture> element: list the WebP <source> first and a JPEG <img> last. Browsers pick the first format they understand. Most CDNs and image plugins do this automatically.

SEO and Core Web Vitals

Lighthouse and PageSpeed Insights flag JPEG images under the audit 'Serve images in next-gen formats' and estimate the savings from WebP. Because hero images are almost always the Largest Contentful Paint element, switching them to WebP is often the single biggest LCP improvement available. Better LCP means a better page experience signal in Google Search.

Test the difference on your own photos.

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

At the same file size, yes: WebP shows fewer artifacts and smoother gradients. At the same quality level, WebP is 25–35% smaller.

For images displayed on your website, yes. Keep JPEG originals as source files and for platforms that do not accept WebP, such as some email tools.

No. WebP does not have a progressive mode, but its smaller size means it finishes loading sooner anyway. Use lazy loading and correct width/height attributes for the best perceived performance.

More comparisons

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

WebP vs AVIF

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.

Read more