WebP generally produces smaller files than JPG at the same visual quality, and it can do things JPG can't, like transparency and animation. JPG's advantage is universality: it has been the default photo format for decades, and virtually every device, app, printer and upload form accepts it.
Side by side
| WebP | JPG | |
|---|---|---|
| File size | Usually smaller at similar quality | Larger |
| Compression | Lossy or lossless | Lossy only |
| Transparency | Yes | No |
| Animation | Yes | No |
| Browser support | All modern browsers | Universal |
| Older software and upload forms | Sometimes rejected | Accepted almost everywhere |
| Printing services | Often unsupported | Standard |
Use WebP when
- You're publishing images on a website and want faster pages
- You need transparency or animation in a small file
- Your platform or CMS supports it, which most now do
Use JPG when
- You're uploading to a form that asks for JPG
- You're printing, or ordering photo prints or books
- You're sending images to people on older devices or apps
- You want maximum compatibility and don't care about a few extra kilobytes
Converting doesn't add quality. Turning a small, compressed WebP into JPG won't recover detail that was removed. Use a high quality setting to avoid adding new compression on top.
Converting between them
To go from WebP to JPG, use our free browser converter. It also handles PNG, AVIF and GIF, and nothing is uploaded.
Frequently asked questions
Is WebP higher quality than JPG?
At the same file size, WebP usually looks better. At the same visual quality, it's usually smaller.
Should I convert all my JPGs to WebP?
For a website, converting can speed up pages. For your personal photo library, keeping JPGs is simpler and more compatible.
Sources
- Google for Developers, WebP compression study