JPG vs WebP: Quality vs File Size
WebP is often smaller than JPG at similar quality, but JPG wins universal compatibility. Here's how to pick the right output.
On this page
If you care about page speed, you have probably heard: “Use WebP.” If you care about compatibility, you have definitely used JPG.
So which should you actually use?
- JPG: universal support, solid quality, very predictable
- WebP: usually smaller files at similar quality, modern support, great for the web
If you want the practical upgrade, try: JPG to WebP.
The “what are you optimizing for?” question
When people debate JPG vs WebP, they are usually optimizing for one of these:
- Compatibility: will this file open everywhere, including older software?
- Speed: will my page load quickly on mobile connections?
- Workflow: can everyone on my team preview and edit this without extra steps?
JPG wins compatibility. WebP usually wins speed. Workflow depends on your tools.
When WebP is the better choice
Use WebP when:
- The image is primarily for web pages
- You are trying to reduce bandwidth and improve load time
- You control the audience (modern browsers) or have fallbacks
Many sites deliver WebP to browsers that support it and fall back to JPG/PNG elsewhere. If you do not have that setup, JPG may still be simpler.
What about transparency?
JPG does not support transparency. WebP does.
That matters when you have:
- Cutout images (products on a transparent background)
- UI overlays
- Logos that need to sit on multiple backgrounds
If your source image has transparency, it was probably a PNG to begin with. In that case, this conversion is the better starting point:
When JPG is the better choice
Use JPG when:
- You need maximum compatibility across devices and software
- You are emailing files or uploading to services with strict format rules
- You want the least “surprising” file for non-technical users
A practical way to compare quality
If you are on the fence, do a quick A/B test:
- Convert one representative photo to WebP: JPG to WebP
- Check it at 100% zoom (fine details, edges, gradients).
- Compare file sizes.
If it looks the same and is smaller, WebP wins for that workflow.
A simple publishing workflow (websites)
If you run a website, a practical approach is:
- Keep originals as JPG (or another source format).
- Generate WebP for modern browsers: JPG to WebP
- Keep JPG as a fallback for universal compatibility.
That gets you most of the speed wins without breaking older clients.
Related conversions
- Converting screenshots/graphics? PNG to WebP
- Need to open WebP in older tools? WebP to PNG
- Considering AVIF too? AVIF vs WebP
FAQ
- Will WebP always be smaller than JPG? Often, but not always. It depends on the image and settings. Test a couple of representative photos to be sure.
- Should I convert everything to WebP? Start with large photos that impact page load. If you are sharing files by email or uploading to unknown systems, keep JPG.
- Is this private? Yes. QuickImager converts locally in your browser with no uploads.
Try it: Convert JPG to WebP.
Convert now (private, no uploads)
Use the exact tool for this guide in your browser.