JPG vs WebP: Which Should You Use?
Both handle photographs well, so the real question is smaller-file-for-the-web versus opens-everywhere. Here's how to call it, and when converting won't help.
Use WebP when the image is for your own website and you want the page to load faster; keep JPG when the file has to open everywhere else — any device, any app, any upload form. Both formats handle photographs well, so this is not the photo-versus-graphic question that decides JPG vs PNG. It is a straight trade: WebP is the smaller file, JPG is the one that works absolutely everywhere.
WebP is, in effect, a more efficient JPG for the web. It stores the same photograph in fewer bytes at the same visible quality — Google's own WebP comparison puts a lossy WebP roughly 25 to 34 percent smaller than a JPEG of equivalent quality. JPG's answer to that is reach: it is thirty years old and there is no camera, browser, printer, or form that doesn't accept it.
What they have in common
More than the versus framing suggests. Both are built for photographs — continuous tones and soft gradients — and both are lossy by default, discarding detail you are unlikely to notice to shrink the file. Both are read by every current major browser, so a WebP on a modern web page just displays, exactly as a JPG does. If your only question is whether a photo will show up in a visitor's browser, either format is a yes.
The difference at a glance
Choose WebP when it's for the web
On a page you control, the smaller file is close to free — the photo looks the same and the page loads quicker, which matters for both visitors and search ranking. JPG to WebP converts a single photo or a whole folder in your browser. WebP also has a lossless mode JPG lacks: push the quality slider to 1 and the encoder switches to lossless WebP, a pixel-exact copy — worth knowing about, though for photographs the lossy setting is the one that actually saves weight. See lossless compression for why that mode exists at all.
Keep JPG when it has to travel
The moment a file leaves your site, WebP's compatibility gap starts to bite. A passport or visa upload portal, a print-on-demand service, an older desktop editor, the occasional email client, a form that only names JPG — any of these can reject a WebP outright. If the file is going somewhere you don't control, JPG remains the safe default. And if you have been handed a WebP that some app won't open, WebP to JPG converts it back to the universal format (it flattens any transparency onto a white background, since JPG has no alpha channel to keep it in).
Does converting JPG to WebP improve the photo?
No — and this is the misunderstanding worth clearing up. WebP cannot rebuild detail that JPG already threw away. Convert a JPG to a lossy WebP and you re-compress an already-compressed image, adding a little more generation loss; convert it to a lossless WebP and you preserve the JPG's existing (already-lossy) pixels in a larger file. The reason to switch is a smaller file at the same appearance, not a better-looking photo. If your JPG is simply too heavy and you would rather not change format, Compress JPG shrinks it in place, and Compress Image does the same for a JPG, PNG, or WebP without converting anything.
Every one of these runs on your device — the photo is never uploaded. For how these two formats sit alongside PNG, AVIF, and the rest, our field guide to image formats lays them out side by side, and more explainers live in the guides.
FAQ
Is WebP better than JPG?
On file size, yes — WebP stores the same photo in noticeably fewer bytes at the same quality, which is why it is the better choice for the web. JPG wins on compatibility: it opens in every device, app, and form, which WebP still cannot promise. For a page you control, WebP; for a file that has to work anywhere, JPG.
Why won't my WebP open?
Some software outside the browser — older editors, certain upload forms, a few print services — still doesn't accept WebP. Every current browser does, but the tool you are handing the file to might not. Convert it with WebP to JPG to get back to a format that works everywhere.
Does converting a JPG to WebP lose quality?
Slightly, if you convert to lossy WebP, because you re-compress an image that was already compressed once. Converting to lossless WebP avoids further loss but produces a larger file and still can't recover what the original JPG discarded. The point of the switch is a smaller file, not a sharper photo.