AVIF and WebP both set out to replace JPEG and PNG. They overlap heavily, but they're not interchangeable — one compresses harder, the other fits more workflows. Here's the honest comparison.
Compression efficiency
AVIF, built on the AV1 video codec, compresses photos to smaller files than WebP at comparable quality — often 20–30% further. Its weak spot is the encode: AVIF encoding is computationally heavier, so conversions take longer, especially at high quality settings or large dimensions.
Features compared
| Feature | AVIF | WebP |
|---|---|---|
| Photo compression | Best-in-class | Very good |
| Lossless graphics | Limited | Yes |
| Transparency | Yes | Yes |
| Animation | Yes | Yes |
| Encode speed | Slow | Fast |
| Tool support | Growing | Widespread |
Support and workflow fit
Every current browser renders AVIF and WebP, so serving either to visitors is safe. The difference is everything else: image editors, CMS plugins, email clients and desktop tools have adopted WebP far more broadly. WebP also encodes much faster, which matters when you're converting a folder of images.
Related reading: WebP vs JPG covers the format most sites are migrating from.
Try it with these tools
Related articles
Formats
WebP vs JPG: Image Quality, Size and Use Cases
How WebP compares to JPEG on quality at the same size, where support now stands, and when sticking with JPG still makes sense.
Read articleFormats
JPG vs PNG: Which Image Format Should You Use?
Why JPEG wins for photos and PNG wins for everything else — compression types, transparency, and the simple decision rule.
Read articleEvery tool mentioned in this article runs entirely in your browser — see privacy for what that means.