JPG vs WEBP: is it worth converting your images?
WEBP typically saves 25–35% over an equivalent JPG. Here is where that saving is real, where it isn't, and what you give up.
Published Updated 7 min read
WEBP is a modern image format that does two things JPG cannot: it compresses more efficiently at the same perceived quality, and it supports transparency. Browser support stopped being a real concern years ago — every current version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari and Edge decodes it. The open question is no longer 'can people see it' but 'is the saving worth the conversion step'.
How much do you actually save?
For typical photographs at matched visual quality, expect 25–35% smaller files. The saving is largest on images with smooth gradients and soft detail — skies, skin, bokeh backgrounds — because WEBP's prediction handles them better than JPG's block transform. The saving is smallest on images that are already heavily compressed: converting a 60 KB JPG that has visible artefacts mostly re-encodes the artefacts, and you may even end up larger.
The PNG case is the strongest one
If you have transparent PNGs — product cut-outs, logos with soft shadows, illustration overlays — WEBP is usually the single biggest file-size win available to you. It keeps the alpha channel and applies lossy compression to the colour data, which PNG cannot do at all. Cuts of 60–80% on large transparent images are common.
What you give up
- Desktop software: some older editors, print workflows and enterprise tools still don't accept WEBP. Keep a JPG master if a file is going to a client or a printer.
- Platform uploads: most social and marketplace uploaders accept WEBP now, but a few still reject it. Convert back to JPG if an upload fails.
- Metadata: conversion drops most EXIF data. If camera settings or copyright fields matter to you, preserve the original.
- Editing chain: WEBP is lossy like JPG, so the same generation-loss rule applies — convert once, at the end.
Choosing a quality setting
| Quality | Use it for | What you'll see |
|---|---|---|
| 90–95 | Hero images, portfolios, product detail | Visually indistinguishable from the source |
| 75–85 | Most web images, blog photos, thumbnails at scale | No visible loss at normal viewing size |
| 55–70 | Background imagery, long feeds, email | Slight softening in fine texture |
| Below 50 | Rarely worth it | Blockiness and colour smearing in flat areas |
Quality numbers are not comparable across formats. WEBP at 80 is not the same amount of data as JPG at 80 — it usually looks better and weighs less. Judge by the output, not by the number.
A workflow that holds up
- Keep the original file untouched somewhere. Every conversion below starts from it, not from a previous export.
- Resize to the largest size the image will ever be displayed at. This dominates everything else.
- Export WEBP at quality 80 for the web, and a JPG at quality 85 as the compatibility fallback if you need one.
- Spot-check the result full-screen, not in a thumbnail — artefacts hide at small sizes.
Tools for this
Keep reading
- JPG vs PNG: which one should you actually use?One throws away detail to stay small, the other keeps every pixel and every transparent edge. Here is how to pick without guessing.
- How to reduce image file size without wrecking the pictureMost oversized images are oversized for one boring reason: the dimensions are far larger than anywhere they're displayed. Fix that first, then compress.