Quick answer
WebP is newer, smaller (25-35% smaller than JPG), and better for web. JPG is older, more compatible, and universal. For modern websites, use WebP and fall back to JPG for older browsers. For print and compatibility, use JPG.
WebP launched in 2010, but most of the web still uses JPG because compatibility and tooling lag behind. Here is a detailed comparison to help you choose.
File size: WebP wins
WebP compresses better than JPG. Real-world comparison on 100 typical photos:
- JPG (quality 85): average 150 KB per photo.
- WebP (quality 75): average 100 KB per photo.
- WebP (lossy): average 80 KB per photo at similar perceived quality.
For a website with 100 product photos, using WebP instead of JPG saves 5-7 MB, roughly 100 milliseconds of initial page load on a typical connection.
Quality and visible artifacts
At quality 85, both formats look nearly identical to human eyes. At quality 70 and below:
- JPG: visible banding in gradients, "mosquito noise" around sharp edges.
- WebP: similar artifacts, but slightly less visible banding in smooth areas.
For professional photography, neither format is ideal. Use lossless formats (PNG, WebP lossless) if quality is critical.
Browser support: JPG wins
Current browser support in 2026:
- JPG: 99.9% of all browsers, including ancient mobile phones and Outlook.
- WebP: 96-97% of modern browsers, excluding Safari versions before 16 (released Sept 2022) and some older Android phones.
If you need to support users on iOS 15 or Android 4.x, JPG is safer. For modern users (Chrome, Firefox, Edge, Safari 16+), WebP is fine.
When to use WebP
Use WebP if:
- Your target audience uses modern browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Edge, Safari 16+, modern Android).
- You control the serving (you can add a fallback).
- File size and page load speed matter (e-commerce, high-traffic sites).
- You are building a new site and can use responsive images with fallbacks.
When to use JPG
Use JPG if:
- You need universal compatibility (old iOS, Outlook, printing).
- You are distributing files to people with mixed software (some may not handle WebP).
- You are archiving images long-term (JPG is more stable).
- The images contain text or fine details (WebP artifacts can be visible).
Best practice: serve both formats
Modern websites use the HTML5 <picture> element:
<picture> <source srcset="photo.webp" type="image/webp"> <img src="photo.jpg" alt="description"> </picture>
This serves WebP to modern browsers, falls back to JPG on older ones. Best of both worlds.
At-a-glance comparison
| Factor | WebP | JPG | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| File size | 25-35% smaller | Baseline | WebP |
| Quality at 85 | Nearly identical | Baseline | Tie |
| Browser support | 96-97% | 99.9% | JPG |
| Artifacts at low quality | Slightly less visible | More visible | WebP |
| Transparency support | Yes | No | WebP |
| Animation | Yes (WEBP) | No (JPEG) | WebP |
| Software support | Growing | Universal | JPG |
| Print compatibility | Limited | Universal | JPG |
