PNG vs JPG vs WebP

PNGLossless, sharp edges, transparencyJPGLossy, small photos, universalWebPBoth modes, smallest files

Short answer

Use WebP as the default for the web — it beats both older formats on file size at equivalent quality and supports transparency and animation. Keep JPG as a fallback for photographs where maximum compatibility matters, and PNG for images that need pixel-exact fidelity, such as screenshots with text or graphics with sharp edges.

Side by side

	PNG	JPG	WebP
Compression	Lossless	Lossy	Lossy or lossless
Transparency	Yes, full alpha	No	Yes, full alpha
Animation	Only as APNG	No	Yes
Best for	Screenshots, logos, sharp edges	Photographs	Almost everything on the web
Typical size vs JPG	Much larger for photos	Baseline	25–35% smaller
Quality loss on re-saving	None	Accumulates each save	Accumulates in lossy mode
Browser support	Universal	Universal	Universal in current browsers
Handles text and line art	Excellent	Poor — visible artefacts	Good

When to use each

Use WebP when…

Your default for web images. Lossy WebP for photos, lossless WebP for graphics — both come out smaller than the equivalent JPG or PNG, with transparency available in either mode.

Use PNG when…

Anything where exact pixels matter: screenshots containing text, logos with hard edges, icons, and images you will re-edit repeatedly, since lossless means no accumulating damage.

Use JPG when…

Photographs where you need the widest possible compatibility — email clients, older systems, or anywhere a file may be opened by software you do not control.

Lossy and lossless is the decision underneath

JPG uses lossy compression: it discards image data the eye is least likely to miss, which is why it makes photographs so small. PNG is lossless — every pixel is preserved exactly, and the file is larger as a result. WebP can operate in either mode.

This is why format choice depends on image content rather than preference. Photographs have smooth gradients and no hard edges, so discarded detail is genuinely hard to see. Screenshots, logos and line art have sharp boundaries, and lossy compression attacks precisely those — producing the smeared halos around text that make a JPG screenshot look cheap.

The reverse is equally true: saving a photograph as PNG produces a file several times larger with no visible benefit, because there was no sharp detail to preserve.

Generation loss

Every time a JPG is opened and re-saved, it is compressed again, and the damage accumulates. Editing the same JPG a dozen times leaves visible degradation even at high quality settings.

PNG has no such problem. Lossless means re-saving is exact, which is why it is the right working format for anything you will revisit.

The practical workflow is to keep masters in a lossless format and export to a lossy one for delivery. Never treat a delivered JPG as your editing copy.

Where WebP and AVIF sit now

WebP typically produces files 25–35% smaller than JPG at comparable quality, and smaller than PNG for graphics, while supporting transparency in both modes. Browser support is universal among browsers in current use, which removes the main historical reason to avoid it.

AVIF compresses better still, often noticeably so, at the cost of slower encoding and support that is good but slightly behind WebP.

The robust approach is a picture element listing AVIF first, then WebP, then a JPG or PNG fallback — each browser takes the first format it understands, and older clients still get a working image.

Frequently asked questions

Is WebP always smaller than JPG?

Usually but not universally. WebP wins on most photographic content at equivalent quality, but a highly optimised JPG can occasionally match or beat it, particularly on small images where WebP's container overhead is proportionally larger. Compare the actual output rather than assuming.

Does image format affect SEO?

Indirectly and meaningfully. Format choice drives file size, file size drives loading performance, and Core Web Vitals — Largest Contentful Paint especially — are ranking signals. Serving a 2MB PNG where a 200KB WebP would do is a real performance cost.

Should I still provide JPG fallbacks?

For a normal website, rarely — WebP support is universal in current browsers. Fallbacks still matter when images may be consumed outside a browser: email clients, older desktop software, or systems you do not control.

What about SVG?

SVG is a different category — it is vector rather than pixel data, so it scales to any size without loss and is usually tiny. Use it for logos, icons and illustrations. It cannot represent photographs, which is why the raster formats still matter.

Try the Image Format Converter

Convert an image between PNG, JPEG and WebP formats without installing anything.

Open tool

More comparisons