📸 JPG vs 🖼️ WebP
JPG vs WebP: file size savings, quality at different compression levels, browser support, and when each format wins. Includes free converters.
Use WebP for any image displayed on a modern website — it delivers 25–35% smaller files than JPG at the same or better visual quality. Use JPG when you need universal compatibility (email clients, old browsers, non-web contexts).
JPG vs WebP: Side-by-Side Comparison
| Property | JPG | WebP |
|---|---|---|
| Typical file size | Baseline | 25–35% smaller than JPG |
| Compression | Lossy | Lossy & lossless |
| Transparency | ❌ Not supported | ✅ Supported |
| Animation | ❌ Not supported | ✅ Supported |
| Browser support | Universal | Chrome, Firefox, Edge, Safari 14+ |
| Email clients | ✅ Universal support | ⚠️ Limited (not Gmail/Outlook) |
| Page speed impact | Standard | Better (smaller = faster LCP) |
When to use JPG
- Email newsletter images (Gmail, Outlook don't support WebP)
- Images for legacy software or print
- Any non-web context needing maximum compatibility
When to use WebP
- All web images (product photos, blog images, hero images)
- Mobile web where bandwidth matters
- Images in
elements with JPG fallback
Frequently Asked Questions
Should I use WebP instead of JPG on my website?
Yes, for most modern websites. WebP produces files 25–35% smaller than JPG at the same visual quality, which directly improves page load time and Core Web Vitals scores. All major browsers support WebP as of 2022.
Can I use WebP in emails?
Not reliably. Gmail, Outlook, and Apple Mail have limited or no WebP support in email rendering. Use JPG or PNG for email images.
How much smaller is WebP compared to JPG?
Typically 25–35% smaller for photographic content at equivalent perceived quality. The saving is larger for images with gradients and complex textures, and smaller for simple flat-colour images.