JPG or WebP: which format fits?

Where JPG is strong

JPEG has been the lowest common denominator of image formats for decades. Every camera, every operating system, every print service and practically every upload form accepts it. When a file has to open reliably everywhere, JPG is the lowest-risk choice.

Where WebP is strong

WebP combines two coding methods: a lossy variant with better prediction than JPEG and a lossless variant. On top of that comes an alpha channel. For delivery on the web that often means smaller files at comparable visible quality – often, not always.

When converting gains nothing

• With small images a few hundred pixels across, the format advantage hardly carries any weight.
• With already heavily compressed JPGs the WebP file can end up larger, because the existing artefacts are coded along with the image.
• For print, WebP is rarely sensible, because prepress almost always expects JPEG or TIFF.
• This converter does not support animated WebP files; that needs a different tool.

Compatibility in everyday use

JPG is read everywhere. WebP is displayed by all current versions of Chrome, Edge, Firefox and Safari, as well as by current image editors and content management systems. Older programs, some email clients and individual print portals do not know the format. When a file travels through an unknown chain of applications, JPG is the safe choice.

A short decision guide

• The image will be uploaded, printed or sent by email: JPG.
• The image will be served on a website and transparency is not needed: try WebP and compare the actual size.
• Transparency must be preserved: stay with WebP.
• Both variants are needed: create two outputs from the original, not from the already converted file.

Measure instead of assuming

Whether WebP is smaller in a given case can be checked in seconds: put the file into the JPG to WebP converter, convert it and compare the sizes shown. The converter displays the actual output size and explicitly points out when the output is larger than the source.