WebP vs JPG
JPG has dominated web photography for 30 years. WebP is smaller, more capable, and now widely supported. Here is how they actually compare.
| JPG | WebP | |
|---|---|---|
| File size | Baseline | 25–34% smaller |
| Compression | Lossy only | Lossy & lossless |
| Transparency | No | Yes (alpha) |
| Animation | No | Yes |
| Browser support | Universal | 95%+ modern |
| Software support | Universal | Growing |
File size: WebP is measurably smaller
Google's benchmarks show WebP is 25–34% smaller than JPEG at equivalent visual quality. A 400KB product photo in JPG might be 270–300KB as WebP at the same perceived quality. For a page with 20 product images, that is 2MB of savings per page load.
The difference is most pronounced with photographs. For simple graphics with flat colors, the gap narrows. Either way, WebP is never larger than JPG at equivalent quality settings.
Quality: both use lossy compression
Both JPG and WebP discard image data to achieve compression — that is how they achieve small file sizes. WebP's compression algorithm is more efficient, which means it reaches the same perceived quality at fewer bytes. At quality 85, most people cannot distinguish a WebP from the original JPG source.
Transparency and animation
JPG supports neither transparency nor animation. WebP supports both. This makes WebP more versatile — it can replace PNG for transparent images and GIF for simple animations, in addition to replacing JPG for photographs.
When JPG is still the right choice
Keep JPG when compatibility across every device and application matters more than file size — email attachments, images shared to social platforms, files sent to clients who will open them in older software. JPG is also the default expected by many print workflows and stock photo platforms.
Convert JPG to WebP free
Drop your JPG, adjust quality, download a smaller WebP. No upload, no sign-up.
Use JPG to WebP Converter →Frequently asked questions
Is WebP better than JPG?
For web delivery, yes. WebP produces files 25–34% smaller than JPEG at equivalent visual quality. It also supports transparency and animation, which JPG cannot do. For maximum software compatibility outside the browser (email clients, older apps), JPG is still more universally supported.
How much smaller is WebP than JPG?
Google's own tests show WebP is 25–34% smaller than JPEG at equivalent quality. In practice, a 400KB JPG might become a 250–280KB WebP at the same visual quality. For high-volume image sites, this adds up to significant bandwidth savings.
Does WebP look different from JPG?
At quality 80–90%, WebP and JPG are visually indistinguishable for most images. Both use lossy compression that discards information the eye struggles to detect. WebP's compression algorithm is more efficient, which is why it achieves the same perceptual quality at a smaller file size.
Does JPG support transparency?
No. JPG does not support transparency — any transparent areas are filled with white or another background color. WebP does support transparency, which gives it an advantage for images like product photos with cutout backgrounds, logos, and icons.
Is WebP supported by all browsers?
WebP is supported by Chrome, Firefox, Safari (since version 14 in 2020), Edge, and Opera. Global browser support exceeds 95%. JPG is supported everywhere including Internet Explorer. If you need to target very old browsers, serve WebP with a JPG fallback using the HTML picture element.
Should I convert all my JPGs to WebP?
For images served on a website: yes, it is worth converting. The file size savings improve page load speed and Core Web Vitals. For images shared via email, social media, or opened in non-browser apps: keep JPG, since WebP compatibility outside the browser is still growing.