Guide · Images

WebP vs JPG: which is better for photos?

Both are made for photographs, and both are lossy. WebP is the newer, more efficient format; JPG is the one every device on earth can open. Here's how they actually compare, and when the extra efficiency is worth it.

File size at the same quality

This is WebP's whole point. At a visually-matched quality level, WebP photos are usually 25–35% smaller than JPG. Its lossy compression is simply more modern than JPG's decades-old algorithm, so you get the same-looking image in noticeably less space, which means faster pages and lower bandwidth when you're serving lots of images.

Features JPG doesn't have

WebP also does things JPG can't: it supports transparency (an alpha channel), a lossless mode, and even animation. JPG is lossy-only and has no transparency at all. So WebP can replace both JPG and PNG/GIF in many situations, part of why it caught on for the web.

Compatibility: JPG's edge

JPG is the most universally-supported image format in existence: every camera, phone, browser, editor, printer and upload form takes it, no exceptions, no plugins. Browser support for WebP is now essentially universal, but outside the browser it's still patchier. Some older desktop editors, email clients and legacy apps won't open a WebP. If a photo is being handed off to open in an unknown app, JPG is the safe default.

When to use which

• Use WebP for: photos on your own website or app, where smaller files speed up the page and the browser handles it.
• Use JPG for: sharing, uploading to sites that don't take WebP, printing, and editing in older tools: anywhere universal support wins.

Convert either way

Processed privately, auto-deleted after an hour:

• Convert JPG to WebP. Shrink photos for the web.
• Convert WebP to JPG. Get a share-anywhere copy.

Related: WebP vs PNG and PNG vs JPG.

TL;DR

WebP is smaller and more capable. Use it on the web. JPG opens everywhere. Use it whenever a photo needs to work in any app, on any device.