WebP was Google's answer to a simple question: can a format beat JPEG at its own game? Fifteen years in, the answer is settled — with a couple of caveats worth knowing.
Size and quality
At the same visual quality, WebP photos are typically 25–35% smaller than JPEG equivalents. The gain comes from better compression arithmetic, not lower fidelity — a WebP at quality 80 usually looks as good as a JPEG at quality 85–90 while being noticeably smaller. For screenshots and graphics, lossless WebP also undercuts PNG by a wide margin.
What WebP has that JPEG doesn't
- An alpha channel — transparency with compression, which JPEG cannot store at all.
- A lossless mode for graphics alongside the lossy mode for photos.
- Animation support, making it a lighter alternative to GIF.
Where JPEG still makes sense
Compatibility is the remaining argument. WebP is supported by every current browser, but some older desktop applications, photo tools and device ecosystems still stumble on it. If an image is destined for an old CMS, a print shop or an unfamiliar device, JPEG remains the safe universal currency.
For the next step smaller still, see AVIF vs WebP.
Try it with these tools
Related articles
Formats
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 articleFormats
AVIF vs WebP: What Is the Difference?
The modern format showdown: compression efficiency, features, browser support and the trade-off that still favors WebP for many workflows.
Read articleEvery tool mentioned in this article runs entirely in your browser — see privacy for what that means.