JPG vs WEBP: which should you use?

JPG has been the default format for web photography for nearly three decades. WEBP is the modern challenger, designed specifically to do the same job with smaller files. This guide compares them directly so you can decide which fits your needs.

File size

This is WEBP's headline advantage. At visually equivalent quality, a WEBP file is typically 25–35% smaller than the same image as JPG. On a photo-heavy website, switching to WEBP can cut total image weight by a third — a substantial improvement in load time and bandwidth, especially on mobile connections.

Image quality

At the same file size, WEBP generally preserves more detail and produces fewer visible artefacts than JPG, particularly in areas with fine texture or gradual colour transitions. JPG's blocky artefacts at aggressive compression are more noticeable than WEBP's softer degradation. For most photographs, WEBP wins on a quality-per-byte basis.

Features

WEBP supports transparency (an alpha channel) and animation, neither of which JPG can do. This means WEBP can sometimes replace PNG and GIF as well, simplifying a site down to a single modern format for most images.

Compatibility

This is JPG's remaining advantage. JPG opens everywhere — every browser, every image viewer, every piece of software written in the last thirty years. WEBP is supported by all current major browsers, but very old software, some email clients, and certain print or design tools may not recognise it. If you are sending a file to an unknown recipient or a legacy system, JPG remains the safe choice.

The practical recommendation

For your own website where you control delivery, prefer WEBP and keep a JPG fallback for the rare old browser. For files you email, share, or hand off to others, JPG is still the most universally safe option. When you need to switch between them, the converter on this site does it instantly in your browser, so you can produce both versions from a single source and compare the file sizes yourself.