Is WebP better than JPEG?

For web delivery, generally yes — typically 25–35% smaller at equivalent visual quality, with transparency and animation support JPEG lacks. JPEG retains an edge only in compatibility with older, non-browser software.

Does WebP support transparency?

Yes, in both lossy and lossless modes, which is a capability JPEG does not have at all and PNG only provides losslessly.

Should I still use PNG?

Where you need lossless output with transparency and the consuming system cannot read WebP. For web pages specifically, WebP lossless is usually a smaller file with identical pixels.

Will converting JPEG to WebP lose quality?

Re-encoding a lossy file is always generational, so some detail is lost. Convert from the original master where you have one; if the JPEG is all you have, encode at 80 or above to keep the loss imperceptible.

Comparisons

WebP vs JPEG vs PNG: which format to use and when

A direct comparison of the three formats you will actually choose between, with the cases where each one wins.

By Mira Lindqvist, Tools engineer, Toolspea · Published 2026-07-08 · Updated 2026-08-07 · 6 min read

The short comparison

The three formats differ in compression method, transparency support and how they degrade.

JPEG — lossy only, no transparency, universally supported, still the safest interchange format for photographs.
PNG — lossless with full alpha transparency, large for photographs, ideal for flat graphics and screenshots with hard edges.
WebP — lossy and lossless in one format, supports transparency and animation, roughly a quarter to a third smaller than the equivalent JPEG or PNG.

Where each one wins

For photographic content, WebP lossy at quality 75–80 is the default and JPEG is the fallback. For interface screenshots, WebP lossless usually beats PNG by a wide margin because it handles large flat areas efficiently. For logos and diagrams, none of the three is the right answer — use SVG.

GIF deserves a mention only to be replaced: it is limited to 256 colours and produces files an order of magnitude larger than an equivalent WebP or muted MP4.

Compatibility in practice

WebP is supported in every current browser, including Safari since 2020. The remaining friction is in non-browser tooling: some CMS uploaders, email clients and older design applications still reject it. That is an argument for keeping a JPEG derivative around, not for avoiding WebP on the web.

What about AVIF?

AVIF generally compresses better than WebP, especially at low bitrates, and browser support is now broad. It is slower to encode and less forgiving of fine detail at aggressive settings. If your pipeline can emit AVIF with a WebP fallback through a picture element, do it; if you are exporting by hand, WebP remains the better effort-to-benefit choice.

Frequently asked questions

Tools mentioned

Image Compressor — Shrink JPEG, PNG and WebP files in your browser with a quality slider.
Image to Base64 — Convert an image into a data URI you can paste into CSS or HTML.
Color Converter — Convert colours between HEX, RGB and HSL notation.

Keep reading

Everything referenced in this article, plus the hubs and guides that go with it.

Image CompressorToolShrink JPEG, PNG and WebP files in your browser with a quality slider.Image to Base64ToolConvert an image into a data URI you can paste into CSS or HTML.Color ConverterToolConvert colours between HEX, RGB and HSL notation.Image toolsCategory3 browser-based image tools that never upload your files.How to compress images without visibly losing qualityGuideA practical method for cutting image weight by 80–95% using format choice, sensible dimensions and a quality setting you can defend.Website cloner vs website downloader: what is the difference?GuideThe two terms describe overlapping tools with different emphases. Here is what each one usually means, and which you want for archiving, offline reading or design reference.Using the toolsFAQInput limits, supported formats, browser requirements and what to do when a tool behaves unexpectedly.