WebP is an image format developed by Google and released in 2010. The pitch is compelling: smaller file sizes than JPG and PNG, at comparable or better quality. Browser support is now essentially universal. Yet plenty of people still haven't switched — often because they're not sure if WebP actually helps their situation, or because a destination doesn't accept it yet.
How it gets smaller files
WebP uses a more sophisticated compression algorithm than either JPG or PNG. For lossy compression (similar to JPG), WebP typically produces files 25–35% smaller than JPG at the same visual quality. For lossless compression (similar to PNG), WebP files are typically 25% smaller than equivalent PNGs. It also supports transparency — something JPG doesn't — which means it can replace both formats in many situations.
When WebP is clearly the right choice
- Images on your own website or app. All major browsers have supported WebP for years. If you control where the image is displayed, WebP is almost always the better choice over JPG or PNG — smaller, faster to load, same quality.
- Photos that need to stay under a file size limit. WebP will often get you there at a higher quality setting than JPG would require.
- Images with both photos and transparency. JPG can't do transparency at all. PNG handles it but at a large file size. WebP handles both at a smaller size.
When to avoid WebP (or convert away from it)
- The destination only accepts JPG or PNG. Government upload portals, many HR systems, and older desktop software often only accept JPG and PNG. WebP will be rejected — convert it first.
- You're sending an image by email to someone who might open it in an older program. Most modern email clients can display WebP, but older versions of Outlook and some other tools cannot. JPG is safer for attachments destined for unknown environments.
- Printing. Most print shops and design software expect TIFF, PNG, or JPG. Send WebP to a printer and you'll likely get an error or a software that can't open the file.
Does WebP have any quality downsides?
For most practical purposes, no. A WebP file at a given quality setting looks the same as a JPG at a similar quality setting — the compression artifacts are different in character but not more visible. At very aggressive compression levels, WebP tends to hold up better than JPG. For lossless mode, WebP is mathematically identical to the original, same as PNG.
The only genuine quality consideration is that some professional imaging workflows (RAW editing, print prepress, color-managed environments) use formats like TIFF or even PNG specifically for their precise color data handling. WebP isn't typically used in those contexts.
The practical answer
If you're putting images on the web and control the destination: use WebP. If you're uploading to a form, sending to a printer, or attaching to an email: stick with JPG or PNG and convert from WebP if that's what you have.