WEBP vs JPG: Which Format Should You Use?

Introduction

WEBP has emerged as a strong alternative to the traditional JPG format, offering better compression rates while maintaining similar image quality. But is it always the better choice? This article examines the key differences, advantages, and limitations of each format.

Technical Comparison

When to Use WEBP

WEBP is generally the better choice when:

• Your audience uses modern browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Edge, Safari 14+)
• You need transparency but don't want PNG's large file sizes
• You want to maximize compression without visible quality loss
• You're implementing responsive images with fallbacks
• Your CMS or framework supports automatic conversion

When to Stick with JPG

JPG might still be preferable when:

• You need maximum compatibility with older browsers
• Your workflow doesn't support WEBP conversion
• You're working with professional photo editing software that doesn't export WEBP
• Your images will be used outside web contexts (printing, desktop apps)

Quality Comparison

At equivalent quality settings, WEBP generally maintains better detail with fewer artifacts than JPG. However, the difference becomes less noticeable at higher quality levels (85%+).

Implementation Tips

1. Using WEBP with Fallbacks

Provide JPG fallbacks for browsers that don't support WEBP:

<picture>
    <source srcset="image.webp" type="image/webp">
    <source srcset="image.jpg" type="image/jpeg">
    <img src="image.jpg" alt="Example image">
</picture>

2. Conversion Tools

Several tools can convert JPG to WEBP:

• Command line: cwebp (from Google)
• Online tools: Squoosh, CloudConvert
• Photo editors: Photoshop (with plugin), GIMP
• Build tools: Webpack, Gulp plugins

3. Quality Settings

Recommended WEBP quality settings:

• High quality: 80-90% (similar to JPG 90-95%)
• Medium quality: 60-80% (similar to JPG 75-90%)
• Low quality: 40-60% (similar to JPG 50-75%)