WebP has been around since 2010, but most people still default to JPEG out of habit. In 2026, with WebP supported by every major browser, the question is no longer "is it safe?" but "when does each one actually win?" Here's a clear, no-marketing comparison.
The short version: Use WebP for anything you publish on the web. Use JPEG for anything you'll email, share with non-technical users, or upload to older platforms. Both formats are lossy, there's no quality magic, just smarter compression.
JPEG (Joint Photographic Experts Group) was standardized in 1992. It uses a discrete cosine transform (DCT) to throw away high-frequency detail your eyes don't easily notice. It's been the default web image format for three decades.
WebP was released by Google in 2010, based on the VP8 video codec. It uses predictive coding, each pixel block is predicted from neighboring blocks, and only the difference is stored. WebP also supports lossless compression and transparency (a feature JPEG never had).
The number you'll see quoted everywhere is "WebP is 25–35% smaller than JPEG." That's accurate for most photos at typical web quality settings. Here's roughly what that looks like in practice for a 1920×1080 photo:
| Quality | JPEG | WebP | Saving |
|---|---|---|---|
| 95 (high) | ~520 KB | ~340 KB | −35% |
| 85 (web default) | ~280 KB | ~190 KB | −32% |
| 75 (compressed) | ~180 KB | ~125 KB | −31% |
| 60 (aggressive) | ~115 KB | ~80 KB | −30% |
Numbers vary with image content. Photos with lots of fine detail (foliage, fur, textures) see smaller savings. Photos with large flat regions (sky, walls, studio backgrounds) see larger savings, sometimes 40% or more.
At the same file size, WebP typically looks slightly better than JPEG. The difference shows up in three places:
JPEG's 8×8 DCT blocks become visible as faint squares in skies, walls, and gradients at low quality. WebP handles these more gracefully because its predictor can encode large flat areas with very few bits.
JPEG produces "ringing", faint halos around high-contrast edges (think text, logos, sharp branches against sky). WebP suppresses ringing better, which is why screenshots and graphics convert much more cleanly to WebP than JPEG.
WebP holds up slightly better in subtle gradients like skin tones. JPEG can introduce visible banding at lower quality settings.
That said, at quality 90+ the two formats are visually indistinguishable for most photos. The "WebP looks better" advantage really kicks in below quality 80, where JPEG artifacts start becoming obvious and WebP still looks clean.
| Platform | WebP | JPEG |
|---|---|---|
| Chrome / Edge / Firefox | ✓ (since ~2013) | ✓ |
| Safari (desktop & iOS) | ✓ (since 14, 2020) | ✓ |
| Android browsers | ✓ | ✓ |
| Email clients (Outlook, Gmail) | Partial | ✓ |
| Image apps on Windows 10/11 | ✓ (since 2018) | ✓ |
| macOS Preview / Finder | ✓ (since Big Sur) | ✓ |
| Old phones / IE11 / legacy systems | ✗ | ✓ |
Globally, about 97% of users have a browser that supports WebP. The 3% who don't are typically on very old devices that probably won't visit your site anyway.
Google's PageSpeed Insights and Lighthouse both actively recommend WebP over JPEG. They flag JPEG images with the warning "Serve images in next-gen formats" and estimate the byte savings WebP would give you.
Smaller images mean faster Largest Contentful Paint (LCP), which is one of the three Core Web Vitals Google uses for ranking. If your hero image is the LCP element, switching from JPEG to WebP can shave hundreds of milliseconds off your LCP score, sometimes the difference between "good" and "needs improvement" in Search Console.
WebP isn't always better. JPEG wins in these cases:
Drop your JPEG into Saint Web Image, choose WebP as the output format, set the quality slider, and click Convert. Everything happens in your browser, your photos never leave your device. You can batch convert up to 50 at once and download the result as a ZIP.
For the opposite direction (WebP → JPEG, e.g. when you save a WebP from a website and need to send it to someone), the process is identical: drop the file, choose JPEG, click Convert.
<picture> element with a JPEG fallback if you need to support truly ancient browsers.Almost always, yes. At equivalent visual quality WebP is typically 25–35% smaller than JPEG. The exception is very small images (under ~10 KB) where WebP's container overhead can make it slightly larger.
Yes. WebP is supported by Chrome, Firefox, Safari (since 14), Edge, Opera, and all modern mobile browsers, about 97% of global users. JPEG is still safer for ancient browsers and email clients.
At the same quality setting, WebP usually looks slightly better than JPEG, especially in flat color regions. JPEG can produce more visible compression artifacts (blocking, ringing) at low quality settings.
If you control where they're displayed (your own website, app, or blog), yes, WebP gives smaller files and faster page loads. For photos you'll email, share with non-technical users, or upload to older platforms, stick with JPEG.
WebP is the right default for the web in 2026. JPEG is the right default for everything else. Both will be around for years to come, there's no urgency to migrate everything. But if you're publishing a new image online today, save it as WebP and let your visitors enjoy the faster page load.