WebP vs AVIF vs JPEG XL: Which Format When?

Modern image formats promise better compression than JPEG, but each has distinct strengths and tradeoffs. This guide provides a comprehensive comparison to help you choose the right format for your needs.

Quick Comparison

Aspect	WebP	AVIF	JPEG XL
Compression	Good	Excellent	Best
Browser Support	97%	93%	~15% (Safari only)
Encoding Speed	Fast	Slow	Medium
Animation	Yes	Yes	Yes
Transparency	Yes	Yes	Yes
HDR	No	Yes	Yes
Lossless JPEG	No	No	Yes
Maturity	Mature	Growing	Stalled

WebP

WebP was developed by Google and released in 2010. It’s based on VP8 video codec technology.

Strengths

Excellent browser support: 97% global coverage, including all modern browsers.

Balanced compression: 25-35% smaller than JPEG at equivalent quality.

Fast encoding: Quick to generate on-the-fly.

Full feature set: Lossy, lossless, animation, and alpha transparency.

Mature ecosystem: Wide tooling support, well-documented.

Weaknesses

Not the best compression: AVIF typically beats WebP by 20%.

16,383×16,383 pixel limit: Can’t handle very large images.

No progressive loading: Images load top-to-bottom.

No HDR support: Limited to SDR content.

Best For

• General web images
• Sites needing maximum browser compatibility
• Dynamic/on-the-fly image generation
• Animated content (replacing GIF)
• When encoding speed matters

WebP Quality Settings

Quality	Typical Use	vs JPEG
85-100	High quality	Similar to JPEG 90-100
75-84	Balanced	Similar to JPEG 80-90
60-74	Compressed	Similar to JPEG 65-80

Sample Implementation

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

AVIF

AVIF (AV1 Image File Format) emerged from the AV1 video codec, developed by the Alliance for Open Media.

Strengths

Best lossy compression: 50% smaller than JPEG, 20% smaller than WebP at equivalent quality.

HDR support: High dynamic range and wide color gamut (Rec. 2020).

Excellent gradient handling: Smooth gradients without banding.

Film grain synthesis: Can reconstruct grain at decode time for smaller files.

Growing support: 93% browser coverage and improving.

Weaknesses

Slow encoding: 10-100× slower than WebP/JPEG.

Limited max dimensions: Some implementations cap at 8K.

Slower decoding: More CPU-intensive to display.

Newer ecosystem: Less tooling maturity than WebP.

Large image decode: Very large AVIFs can be slow to render.

Best For

• Hero images and key visuals
• Photography portfolios
• When file size is critical
• HDR content
• Modern browser audiences
• Pre-generated static assets

AVIF Quality Settings

AVIF is more efficient—use lower numbers for equivalent quality:

Quality	Typical Use	vs JPEG Equivalent
75-90	High quality	JPEG 90-100
60-74	Balanced	JPEG 80-90
45-59	Compressed	JPEG 65-80
30-44	Aggressive	JPEG 50-65

Sample Implementation

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

JPEG XL

JPEG XL was developed by the JPEG committee, combining Google’s PIK and Cloudinary’s FUIF proposals.

Strengths

Best overall compression: Often beats AVIF in quality-per-byte.

Lossless JPEG transcoding: Can convert JPEG to JXL and back without quality loss.

Progressive decoding: Shows preview while loading.

Huge dimension support: Up to 1 billion × 1 billion pixels.

HDR and wide gamut: Full support for modern display technologies.

Responsive by design: Built-in support for multiple resolutions.

Weaknesses

Minimal browser support: Only Safari 17+ (~15% of users).

Chrome/Firefox removed support: Previously supported behind flags, now removed.

Uncertain future: Adoption stalled despite technical excellence.

Limited tooling: Fewer mature tools than WebP/AVIF.

Current Status

JPEG XL is technically superior but faces adoption challenges:

• Chrome: Removed support (was behind flag)
• Firefox: Removed support (was behind flag)
• Safari: Supports since version 17
• Edge: No support

Recommendation: Don’t use JPEG XL for web delivery today. Monitor for future browser adoption.

Potential Use Cases (If Support Improves)

• Archival and master files
• Progressive image delivery
• JPEG library migration (lossless conversion)
• Very large images (gigapixel)

Head-to-Head Comparison

Compression Efficiency

For a typical 1920×1080 photograph at equivalent visual quality:

Format	File Size	Relative
JPEG q=80	200 KB	Baseline
WebP q=80	150 KB	25% smaller
AVIF q=65	100 KB	50% smaller
JPEG XL	90 KB	55% smaller

Results vary by image content

Encoding Speed

Time to encode a 4000×3000 image:

Format	Encoding Time	Relative
JPEG	50 ms	Baseline
WebP	100 ms	2× slower
AVIF (speed 6)	2000 ms	40× slower
AVIF (speed 0)	30000 ms	600× slower
JPEG XL	500 ms	10× slower

AVIF speed setting dramatically affects encoding time

Decoding Speed

Time to decode and render a 1920×1080 image:

Format	Decode Time	CPU Impact
JPEG	10 ms	Low
WebP	15 ms	Low
AVIF	30 ms	Medium
JPEG XL	20 ms	Medium

Feature Comparison

Feature	JPEG	WebP	AVIF	JPEG XL
Lossy compression	✓	✓	✓	✓
Lossless compression	✗	✓	✓	✓
Alpha transparency	✗	✓	✓	✓
Animation	✗	✓	✓	✓
Progressive loading	✓	✗	✗*	✓
HDR	✗	✗	✓	✓
Wide gamut	Limited	Limited	✓	✓
Max dimensions	65K	16K	65K	1B
Lossless JPEG convert	N/A	✗	✗	✓

*AVIF supports layered progressive loading but with limited implementation

Browser Support Deep Dive

Current Support (2026)

Browser	WebP	AVIF	JPEG XL
Chrome	17+ (2012)	85+ (2020)	✗
Firefox	65+ (2019)	93+ (2021)	✗
Safari	14+ (2020)	16.4+ (2023)	17+ (2023)
Edge	18+ (2018)	121+ (2024)	✗
Samsung	4+ (2016)	100+	✗

Global Coverage

Format	Global Support	Remaining
WebP	~97%	iOS 13, old Safari
AVIF	~93%	Older browsers
JPEG XL	~15%	Safari only

Fallback Strategy

Always provide fallbacks for older browsers:

<picture>
  <!-- Best compression, growing support -->
  <source srcset="image.avif" type="image/avif">
  <!-- Good compression, excellent support -->
  <source srcset="image.webp" type="image/webp">
  <!-- Universal fallback -->
  <img src="image.jpg" alt="Description">
</picture>

Decision Framework

Primary Format Selection

Do you need maximum browser support?
├── Yes → WebP primary, JPEG fallback
└── No → Is encoding speed critical (dynamic generation)?
    ├── Yes → WebP primary
    └── No → Do you need HDR?
        ├── Yes → AVIF primary
        └── No → Is file size critical?
            ├── Yes → AVIF primary
            └── No → WebP primary

Recommended Stacks

Maximum Compatibility:

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

Balanced (Most Sites):

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

Maximum Compression:

<picture>
  <source srcset="image.avif" type="image/avif">
  <img src="image.jpg" alt="Description">
</picture>

Use Case Matrix

Use Case	Recommended	Reasoning
General web	WebP + AVIF	Broad support + compression
E-commerce products	AVIF + WebP	Quality matters, pre-generated
User uploads	WebP	Fast encoding, good compression
Photography	AVIF	Best quality, pre-generated
Animations	WebP	Best animation support
Hero images	AVIF	Worth the encoding time
Thumbnails	WebP	Fast generation, good enough
Email	JPEG	Universal support
CDN auto-format	AVIF → WebP → JPEG	CDN handles complexity

Implementation Strategies

Static Site Generation

Pre-generate all formats during build:

const sharp = require('sharp');

async function generateFormats(input) {
  const base = input.replace(/\.[^.]+$/, '');

  await Promise.all([
    // AVIF (slow, do first for build caching)
    sharp(input).avif({ quality: 65 }).toFile(`${base}.avif`),
    // WebP
    sharp(input).webp({ quality: 80 }).toFile(`${base}.webp`),
    // JPEG fallback
    sharp(input).jpeg({ quality: 80 }).toFile(`${base}.jpg`)
  ]);
}

CDN/Image Service

Let the CDN handle format selection:

<!-- Sirv auto-selects best format -->
<img src="https://example.sirv.com/image.jpg?format=optimal" alt="">

<!-- Cloudinary -->
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/demo/image/upload/f_auto/image.jpg" alt="">

Server-Side Negotiation

Use Accept header to serve appropriate format:

# Nginx configuration
map $http_accept $img_suffix {
  default ".jpg";
  "~*avif" ".avif";
  "~*webp" ".webp";
}

location /images/ {
  try_files $uri$img_suffix $uri =404;
  add_header Vary Accept;
}

Quality Tuning

Equivalent Quality Settings

For similar visual quality across formats:

Target	JPEG	WebP	AVIF
High	90	85	75
Standard	80	75	65
Compressed	70	65	50
Aggressive	60	55	40

AVIF Encoding Optimization

# Balance quality and encoding time
avifenc --min 20 --max 40 --speed 6 input.png output.avif

# Maximum quality (slow)
avifenc --min 10 --max 30 --speed 0 input.png output.avif

# Fast encoding (lower compression)
avifenc --min 30 --max 50 --speed 9 input.png output.avif

Content-Specific Settings

Content	AVIF Quality	WebP Quality	Notes
Photographs	60-70	75-80	Standard
Text overlays	75-85	85-90	Preserve sharpness
Gradients	70-80	80-85	AVIF excels
Detailed textures	65-75	80-85	Balance quality/size
Product photos	70-80	80-85	Quality matters

Migration Strategy

From JPEG-Only

1. Audit current images: Identify largest and most-viewed
2. Add WebP first: Maximum support, immediate gains
3. Add AVIF second: Additional compression for modern browsers
4. Use picture element: Maintain fallbacks
5. Monitor metrics: Track bandwidth savings and Core Web Vitals

Sample Migration

Before:

<img src="product.jpg" alt="Product">

After:

<picture>
  <source srcset="product.avif" type="image/avif">
  <source srcset="product.webp" type="image/webp">
  <img src="product.jpg" alt="Product" width="800" height="600">
</picture>

The JPEG XL Question

Should You Wait for JPEG XL?

Arguments for waiting:

• Technically superior format
• Safari support indicates some momentum
• Lossless JPEG conversion is unique

Arguments against waiting:

• Chrome/Firefox removed support
• No timeline for re-addition
• AVIF covers most use cases

Recommendation: Use AVIF and WebP today. Monitor JPEG XL developments but don’t depend on it for web delivery.

JPEG XL for Archival

Even without browser support, JPEG XL can be valuable:

# Losslessly convert JPEG to JXL (saves ~20%)
cjxl input.jpg output.jxl --lossless_jpeg=1

# Convert back to identical JPEG when needed
djxl output.jxl restored.jpg

This provides archival savings while maintaining the ability to serve JPEG.

Summary

Quick Recommendations

Scenario	Format Stack
Most websites	AVIF → WebP → JPEG
Maximum compatibility	WebP → JPEG
Dynamic generation	WebP → JPEG
Photography focus	AVIF → JPEG
CDN-based	Auto-format (CDN handles)

Format Strengths at a Glance

• WebP: Best balance of support and compression, mature ecosystem
• AVIF: Best compression, HDR support, growing adoption
• JPEG XL: Best technically, but limited browser support

Implementation Checklist

1. ✅ Use picture element with format fallbacks
2. ✅ Generate AVIF for pre-built static assets
3. ✅ Use WebP for dynamic/real-time generation
4. ✅ Always provide JPEG fallback
5. ✅ Tune quality settings per format
6. ✅ Consider CDN auto-format for simplicity
7. ✅ Monitor browser support changes
8. ✅ Test visual quality at your chosen settings

The format landscape continues to evolve. Today, the AVIF → WebP → JPEG stack provides the best combination of compression and compatibility for most websites.