All formats
WebP vs JPG
WebP wins on file size for the same visible quality, typically by 25 to 35 percent, and it supports transparency and animation, which JPG does not. JPG wins on universal support: every piece of software written since 1992 opens it. For a website, use WebP. For a file you are sending someone, use JPG.
Side by side
| Spec | WebP | JPG |
|---|---|---|
| Type | Image | Image |
| Extensions | .webp | .jpg, .jpeg |
| Introduced | 2010 | 1992 |
| Compression | Both | Lossy |
| MIME type | image/webp | image/jpeg |
| Use it when | Serving images on the web and you want the smallest files with broad browser support. | Sharing photographs where universal compatibility matters more than the last few percent of file size. |
| Avoid it when | Handing files to a client, a printer, or older desktop software that may not support it. | The image has transparency, hard edges, screenshots or text, or will be edited and re-saved repeatedly. |
Where the usual answer breaks
Very small images, under about 10 KB, sometimes come out larger as WebP because of its container overhead.
WebP
- Smaller than JPG at similar visual quality, and smaller than PNG when lossless
- Supports transparency and animation, which JPG cannot
- Supported in all current major browsers
- Older desktop software and some print workflows still will not open it
- Lossy WebP, like JPG, degrades on every re-encode
JPG
- Opens everywhere, with no compatibility caveats
- Small files for photographic content
- Adjustable quality, so you control the size/fidelity trade-off
- No transparency (alpha) channel
- Every re-save loses more detail, so repeated edits degrade the image
- Visible blocking and halos on sharp edges, text and flat colour
Convert between WebP and JPG
JPG to WebP
The usual reason to do this is page weight. WebP at quality 0.9 typically lands 25 to 35 percent below the same photo as JPG, with no visible difference at normal viewing size.
WebP to JPG
Two lossy codecs in sequence. The WebP is decoded and re-encoded, so this generation loses a little more detail than the original encode did.
Other comparisons
Last updated 2026-08-03