WebP vs JPG: Which Format Is Better for Photos?
JPG has been the default photo format for 30 years. It works everywhere. Everyone knows it. Every camera, phone, and app produces JPGs.
Then WebP showed up. Google built it to be smaller and faster. And it is. But does that mean you should stop using JPG?
The answer depends on where your images end up. Here's the full comparison.
How Much Smaller Is WebP Than JPG?
WebP beats JPG on file size at every quality level. The savings are consistent across different types of photos.
| Photo type | JPG (85%) | WebP (85%) | Savings |
|---|---|---|---|
| Landscape photo | 1.2 MB | 850 KB | 29% |
| Portrait | 800 KB | 550 KB | 31% |
| Product photo | 400 KB | 260 KB | 35% |
| Food photo | 600 KB | 400 KB | 33% |
| Screenshot with text | 300 KB | 170 KB | 43% |
On average, WebP is 25-35% smaller than JPG at the same visual quality. For photos with lots of sharp edges and text, the savings are even higher.
This matters most for websites. A page with ten product photos at 400 KB each costs 4 MB of bandwidth in JPG. In WebP, that drops to 2.6 MB. Multiply across thousands of page views and the bandwidth savings are significant.
Can You Tell the Difference in Quality?
At the same quality setting, WebP and JPG look almost identical. Both use lossy compression. Both throw away data that your eyes won't notice. The visual result is very close.
Where they differ slightly:
Fine detail. WebP tends to preserve fine textures a bit better than JPG at the same file size. Hair, fabric, and grass look slightly sharper in WebP.
Color gradients. JPG can show banding in smooth gradients (like a sunset sky) at lower quality. WebP handles gradients more gracefully.
Sharp edges. JPG creates visible "ringing" artifacts around high-contrast edges (text on photos, logos). WebP reduces these artifacts.
At quality 80% and above, most people can't tell JPG and WebP apart in a side-by-side comparison. The differences only become obvious below 70% quality, where WebP maintains clarity better.
Does WebP Support Everything JPG Does?
WebP actually does more than JPG. Here's what each format supports:
| Feature | JPG | WebP |
|---|---|---|
| Lossy compression | Yes | Yes |
| Lossless compression | No | Yes |
| Transparency | No | Yes |
| Animation | No | Yes |
| Color depth | 8-bit | 8-bit |
| EXIF metadata | Yes | Yes |
| Progressive loading | Yes | No (but fast enough) |
| Max dimensions | 65,535 px | 16,383 px |
The transparency support is a big deal. If you need a photo with a transparent background (product cutout, portrait without background), JPG can't do it. WebP can. With JPG, you'd need to use PNG for transparency, which produces much larger files.
The max dimension limit is worth noting. WebP caps at 16,383 x 16,383 pixels. JPG goes up to 65,535 x 65,535. For most photos, this doesn't matter. But panoramic shots and very high-resolution scans might hit the WebP limit.
Where Does JPG Still Win?
JPG has advantages that keep it relevant in 2026.
Universal support. JPG works in every app, every email client, every device, every printer. WebP doesn't. If you're sending a photo and don't know what the recipient will open it with, JPG is the safe choice.
Email attachments. Most email clients display JPG inline without issues. WebP support in email is inconsistent. Some clients show it. Others show a broken image or download link.
Printing. Print shops, photo labs, and publishing workflows expect JPG (or TIFF). WebP is not a print format. Don't send WebP to a printer.
Camera output. Cameras and phones shoot JPG natively. You get JPG straight from the sensor with no conversion needed. Using WebP means adding a conversion step.
Social media uploads. Most social platforms accept and handle JPG well. While many now accept WebP too, JPG is the format that's been tested and optimized for years.
Editing workflows. Photoshop, Lightroom, and most photo editors have deep JPG support. WebP support exists but isn't as mature.
Where Should You Use WebP Instead of JPG?
WebP is the better choice for web delivery.
Website photos. Every photo on your website should be WebP (or AVIF). The 25-35% file size reduction improves page speed, search rankings, and mobile experience. There's no reason to serve JPG on a modern website.
Web app content. User-uploaded photos, profile pictures, and content images should be stored or served as WebP. Smaller files mean lower storage costs and faster delivery.
Progressive Web Apps. PWAs that work offline benefit from smaller image sizes. Less data to cache. Faster initial loads.
CDN delivery. If you use a CDN, many can automatically convert JPG to WebP on the fly. Cloudflare, Cloudinary, and imgix all offer this. You upload JPG and serve WebP to supported browsers.
Thumbnails and previews. Small images get even bigger relative savings from WebP compression. A 50 KB JPG thumbnail might be 30 KB as WebP. At scale, this adds up.
Should You Convert All Your JPGs to WebP?
For web use, yes. The savings are real and the quality is equivalent.
For archival and general storage, keep your JPGs. They're more portable. More apps support them. And if you ever need to print or email photos, JPG is still the easier format.
The smart approach: keep your original JPGs as source files. Generate WebP versions for web delivery. If you need to make edits or share photos outside the web, use the JPG originals.
For a detailed comparison of all major formats, read our image format guide.
How Do You Convert Between WebP and JPG?
ConvertIMG converts in both directions. JPG to WebP for web optimization. WebP to JPG for compatibility. Drop your files in, pick your format and quality, and download. Free, private, runs in your browser.
ConvertIMG
Convert images between JPEG, PNG, WebP, and AVIF. Free and right in your browser.
Try ConvertIMG Free