WebP vs JPG: Which Should You Use?
You're optimizing images for a website and you need to decide: stick with JPG or switch to WebP? Both are lossy formats designed for photos. Both are widely supported. But WebP is significantly smaller, and on an image-heavy site that difference adds up fast. Here's a practical breakdown to help you choose — and tools to convert either way.
Try the WebP vs JPG comparison tool free →
The short answer
Use WebP for web delivery. Keep JPG as your source and archive format. If you need one format and don't want to think about it: WebP for anything going on a website, JPG for everything else.
File size comparison
WebP is 25–35% smaller than JPG at equivalent visual quality. That's not a marginal difference — it's meaningful. For a site with 50 product photos averaging 200 KB each as JPGs, switching to WebP brings that down to roughly 130–150 KB per image. Across a full page load, you could be saving 2–4 MB just from format choice alone, before you touch compression settings.
The savings come from WebP's more efficient compression algorithm. Google developed WebP specifically to reduce file sizes for web delivery, and it shows in real-world use.
Quality comparison
At high quality settings (85 and above), most people cannot tell the difference between a WebP and a JPG of the same image. The compression artifacts look different under the hood — JPG produces blocky 8×8 grid artifacts at low quality, while WebP tends to produce blurrier, less grid-like artifacts — but at the quality levels you'd actually use on a website, it's not visible.
Where WebP pulls ahead is at lower quality settings. If you need to compress aggressively, WebP handles it more gracefully than JPG. A WebP at quality 60 often looks better than a JPG at quality 60, which means you can compress more before the quality becomes noticeable.
Browser support
WebP is supported by 97%+ of browsers in active use. Chrome, Firefox, Safari (since version 14), Edge, and all modern mobile browsers support it natively. The only notable holdouts are Internet Explorer 11 and very old versions of Safari — if your audience doesn't include IE11 users (it was retired in 2022), you can use WebP without a fallback and be fine.
If you need to be safe, the standard approach is to serve WebP with a JPG fallback using the <picture> element. The browser picks WebP if it can, falls back to JPG if it can't.
When to use each
| Scenario | Recommended | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Website images | WebP | 25–35% smaller, faster load times |
| Email attachments | JPG | Universal compatibility across email clients |
| JPG or TIFF | Industry standard, professional software support | |
| Social media uploads | JPG | Widest platform support, platforms re-encode anyway |
| Archive/master copy | JPG | More tool support for future editing |
| Web app with broad compatibility | WebP + JPG fallback | Serve WebP to modern browsers, fall back to JPG |
To convert your existing JPGs to WebP, use the JPG to WebP converter. Going the other direction — WebP back to JPG — use the WebP to JPG converter. Both run entirely in your browser with no file uploads.
Built with vanilla HTML/JS. No frameworks, no backend, loads instantly.