WebP vs JPG: should you switch?
WebP promises smaller files than JPG at the same quality. Is it worth switching? For the web in 2025, almost always yes — with a couple of caveats.
File size
WebP is typically 25-35% smaller than JPG at equivalent visual quality. On an image-heavy page that's a major speed improvement and a direct Core Web Vitals win.
Quality
At the same file size, WebP generally preserves more detail than JPG, especially in gradients and flat areas where JPG shows blocking artifacts.
Browser support
Every modern browser — Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge — supports WebP. That's ~97% of users. For the rare old client, keep a JPG fallback via the <picture> element.
When to stick with JPG
- Uploading to a platform or app that rejects WebP (some do).
- Sending to someone on legacy software.
- Print workflows that expect JPG/TIFF.
The verdict
Use WebP for your website and apps; keep JPG for maximum compatibility and uploads to picky platforms. Convert freely both ways: JPG to WebP for the web, WebP to JPG for compatibility — both run in your browser. More format help: JPG vs PNG vs WebP.