WebP vs JPEG: Which Is Better for Photos?
JPEG has been the default for photos for decades; WebP compresses photos smaller at the same quality and adds transparency. Here is the comparison.
| Feature | JPEG | WebP |
|---|---|---|
| Compression | Lossy | Lossy and lossless |
| File size (same quality) | Larger | 25–35% smaller |
| Transparency | No | Yes |
| Animation | No | Yes |
| Browser support | Universal | All modern browsers |
| Best for | Legacy compatibility | Modern web photos |
The key difference
For photographs, WebP gives a better size-to-quality ratio than JPEG and can also store transparency and animation — things JPEG cannot do. JPEG's only real advantage today is universal compatibility, which matters for email and very old software.
Which should you use?
Use WebP for photos on modern websites to cut page weight without visible quality loss. Keep JPEG as a fallback for legacy environments. Convert from the highest-quality source you have to avoid stacking compression artefacts.
Optimise your photos
Frequently asked questions
For modern web photos, yes — WebP is typically 25–35% smaller than JPEG at the same quality and also supports transparency and animation. JPEG only wins on legacy compatibility.
Yes. Unlike JPEG, WebP supports full transparency, which is useful for cut-out photos and product shots.
For website delivery it is usually worth it for the speed gain. Keep JPEG masters and use JPEG fallbacks for email or legacy systems.