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.