WebP vs JPEG vs PNG: Which to Use, and When
· 7 min read
Use WebP for everything on the web — it beats JPEG by 25-35% at matched quality and PNG by around 26% losslessly, and it supports transparency. Use PNG for logos, screenshots and anything with text where lossless output matters. Use JPEG only when something downstream specifically demands it.
Three formats, one decision, and it is simpler than the arguments about it suggest. Here is what each is actually for.
On this page
The short version
Use WebP for everything on the web. Use PNG when you need guaranteed lossless output or you are handing the file to software that will not open WebP. Use JPEG when something specifically demands it.
That is the whole decision for most people. The detail below matters when you are choosing for a particular image rather than in general.
| JPEG | PNG | WebP | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compression | Lossy | Lossless | Both |
| Transparency | No | Yes | Yes |
| Relative size (photo) | Baseline | 3–5× larger | 25–35% smaller |
| Best for | Legacy compatibility | Logos, screenshots | Almost everything |
Why WebP wins on the web
WebP does what JPEG and PNG each do individually, and does both better. It has a lossy mode that beats JPEG by a quarter to a third at matched quality, and a lossless mode that beats PNG by around a quarter. It also supports transparency, which JPEG cannot.
Smaller images load faster, and load speed is a ranking signal — Largest Contentful Paint is a Core Web Vital and images are usually what determines it.
Convert ImageSwitch between PNG, JPG and WebPWhere PNG and JPEG still make sense
PNG remains the right choice for logos, icons, diagrams and screenshots containing text, where lossless output matters and the files are small anyway. It is also the safest format to hand to unknown software.
JPEG is worth keeping when the destination is an old system, an email client, or a photo service that re-encodes anyway. Outside those cases WebP does the same job in a smaller file.
Why PNG is so large for photographs
PNG compresses losslessly by finding patterns — runs of identical pixels, rows that resemble the row above. Interface screenshots are full of those, which is why PNG handles them beautifully.
A photograph has almost none. Sensor noise means adjacent pixels differ slightly even in a flat sky, so there are no runs to collapse and no rows that repeat. PNG stores every one of those tiny differences faithfully, and the file is enormous.
This is the single most common format mistake: saving photographs as PNG because it is 'higher quality'. The quality is identical to what the camera captured either way; PNG just spends five times the bytes preserving noise.
Choosing by what is in the picture
The reliable question is not which format is best but what the image is made of. Photographic detail and flat graphic detail have opposite requirements, and every format choice follows from which one dominates.
| What the image contains | Best format | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Photograph | WebP lossy | Noise defeats lossless; the eye tolerates the loss |
| Screenshot with text | WebP lossless or PNG | Hard edges smear under lossy compression |
| Logo or icon | SVG if you have it, else PNG | Vector scales; PNG keeps edges exact |
| Illustration, flat colour | WebP lossless | Few colours compress extremely well |
| Anything needing transparency | WebP or PNG | JPEG cannot store an alpha channel |
Why published comparisons disagree with each other
Every guide quotes a different figure — 26%, 30%, 34%, 80% — and they are mostly all correct, because compression ratios are a property of the image rather than of the format. A screenshot, a gradient and a portrait behave completely differently under the same encoder.
The widely cited numbers — WebP around 25–35% below JPEG at matched quality, and around 26% below PNG losslessly — are averages across a large test corpus. Any individual image can land far from them in either direction, and a synthetic image like a gradient can beat them by an order of magnitude while telling you nothing useful about photographs.
So treat the percentages as direction rather than prediction. The reliable way to know what your images do is to convert a representative handful and compare the results.
What quality number to use
Quality scales are not comparable between encoders — WebP at 80 and JPEG at 80 are different amounts of compression — but the practical advice converges anyway.
For photographs, 80 is the point where further increases cost real file size and buy nothing the eye can find. Below about 65 the artefacts become visible in flat areas like skies and skin. Above 90 you are paying a lot for a difference that only appears under magnification.
Images containing text are the exception in both directions: they want 85 or higher in a lossy format, or ideally a lossless one, because the eye is unusually good at spotting distortion around letterforms.
- Photographs: 80
- Photographs going to print: 90
- Screenshots and images with text: lossless, or 85 minimum
- Thumbnails under 300px: 70 is fine, the artefacts are too small to see
Transparency, and the mistake it causes
JPEG has no alpha channel. Converting a transparent PNG to JPEG does not warn you — it fills the transparent area with a solid colour, usually white or black, and the result is a logo with a visible rectangle around it on any coloured background.
This is the most common irreversible format error, because the damage is invisible until the image is placed somewhere with a different background. WebP supports transparency in both its lossy and lossless modes, which is why it is the right answer for a logo that also needs to be small.
What about AVIF
AVIF compresses harder than WebP — often 20% smaller again. Its drawbacks are practical rather than technical: encoding is slow, painfully so on phones, and tooling support is still patchier.
For 2026 WebP is the sensible default. AVIF is worth it for large hero images on a site where you control the pipeline and can afford the encode time.
Common questions
Is WebP better than JPEG?
For web images, yes. WebP produces files 25–34% smaller than JPEG at the same quality level. It also supports transparency (like PNG) and animation. The only drawback is very old email clients and legacy software that can't display WebP.
When should I still use PNG?
Use PNG for logos, icons, screenshots, and any image with text or hard edges that needs to stay pixel-sharp. PNG is lossless — every pixel is preserved exactly. For these use cases, JPEG and WebP's lossy compression introduces visible artifacts around edges.
Does WebP lose quality like JPEG?
WebP supports both lossy and lossless modes. In lossless mode, it produces files 26% smaller than PNG with zero quality loss. In lossy mode (the default for photos), it matches JPEG quality at 25–34% smaller file sizes.
Can I convert my existing JPEG and PNG images to WebP?
Yes. FileCrisp converts any JPEG or PNG to WebP free, in your browser, with no upload. Drop your file, choose quality (80% recommended), and download the converted WebP.
Will changing to WebP hurt my SEO?
No — Google actively recommends WebP and awards faster-loading pages higher rankings. The smaller file size means faster LCP (Largest Contentful Paint), which is a Core Web Vitals signal Google measures.
What about AVIF — is it better than WebP?
It compresses harder — often 20% smaller again — but encoding is slow, painfully so on phones, and tooling support is patchier. WebP remains the practical default; AVIF earns its place on large hero images in a pipeline you control.
Why is my PNG photograph so much larger than the JPEG?
PNG compresses by finding repeated patterns, and a photograph has almost none — sensor noise makes every pixel slightly different. It stores all of that faithfully, which is why photographs saved as PNG run three to five times larger for no visible gain.
Which format should I use for a logo?
SVG if you have the vector, because it stays sharp at any size and is usually tiny. Failing that, PNG or lossless WebP — both keep the edges exact, which lossy compression does not.
Does the format affect how the image looks after I upload it somewhere?
Indirectly. Most platforms re-encode uploads to their own format regardless of what you send, so the practical goal is to arrive close to their target dimensions and quality so their pass has little left to do.