WEBP vs JPG vs PNG: Which Format Is Really Best for the Web?

The Short Answer

For most web images in 2025: use WEBP. It's smaller than JPG, supports transparency like PNG, and has excellent browser support (Chrome, Firefox, Edge, Safari, iOS 14+, all modern Android). The only reason not to use WEBP is IE11 support — which represents well under 1% of global traffic.

That said, JPG and PNG both have specific use cases where they remain the better choice. Here's the complete breakdown.

File Size Comparison

Google's research on the WEBP format shows consistent savings across image types:

• WEBP lossy vs JPEG: 25–34% smaller at equivalent quality
• WEBP lossless vs PNG: 26% smaller
• WEBP with alpha vs PNG with alpha: 22% smaller on average

In practice, a 200 KB JPG photograph becomes roughly 130–150 KB as WEBP at the same visual quality. At scale — a website with hundreds of product images — this represents significant bandwidth savings.

Quality Comparison

At equivalent compression ratios, WEBP and JPG produce visually similar results. WEBP's compression algorithm handles high-frequency detail (sharp edges, text in images) somewhat better than JPG, producing fewer artefacts around text and logos.

PNG remains the only format that guarantees bit-perfect lossless quality. If your workflow requires multiple export cycles (edit → export → re-edit → re-export), only PNG will not accumulate quality degradation.

Transparency Support

Browser Support

Global WEBP browser support is approximately 97% of users. Unless your audience is specifically corporate Windows environments still using IE11, WEBP is safe to use.

The HTML Picture Element for Fallback

If you need to support all browsers including IE11, use the picture element to serve WEBP to supporting browsers with a JPG/PNG fallback:

<picture>
  <source srcset="image.webp" type="image/webp">
  <img src="image.jpg" alt="Description">
</picture>

Recommendations by Use Case

Convert images to WEBP for free using our WEBP Converter.