WebP vs AVIF: Which Should You Use?

For most websites today, use WebP: it makes files nearly as small as AVIF, it is easier to produce, and it opens in more software. Reach for AVIF when you need the absolute smallest file, or HDR and wide colour, and you control the whole pipeline. Both are modern, open, royalty-free formats built to replace JPG on the web — the choice between them is a trade between size and reach.

They come from different camps. WebP is Google's, and its lossy mode is built on the VP8 video codec. AVIF is newer, from the Alliance for Open Media, and stores an AV1-compressed frame inside the same HEIF container Apple's HEIC photos use. Different lineages, the same goal: same picture, fewer bytes, faster page.

What WebP and AVIF have in common

More than the versus framing suggests. Both do lossy and lossless in a single format, so one file type covers jobs that used to need a JPG and a PNG. Both carry a full alpha channel, so a transparent logo or a soft cut-out survives. Both can store animation, doing an animated GIF's job at a fraction of the size. And both beat JPG on file size for the same visual quality. If your only question is "should I move off JPG", either one is a yes.

Where AVIF pulls ahead

AVIF is usually the smaller of the two at the same quality, and it can hold things WebP cannot:

On size, Mozilla's format guide puts a lossy AVIF ahead of WebP on median compression — smaller files for the same picture. On colour, AVIF supports higher bit depths and a wider gamut, so it can hold HDR highlights and more shades than WebP, which is 8-bit only. If you are shipping high-quality photography or HDR content and every kilobyte counts, AVIF is the more capable format.

Where WebP still wins

Three things, and for a lot of sites they outweigh the size gap. First, encoding speed: AVIF does more compression work, so it is slower to produce, which matters when you are converting a whole library or generating images on the fly. Second, software support outside the browser: WebP is older and more widely handled, so more desktop editors, uploaders, and services accept it — AVIF is still catching up there. Third, one AVIF quirk on large images: it does not render progressively, so the browser waits for the whole file before showing anything rather than fading in a rough version first, which can feel slower on a hero photo even when the file is smaller.

None of these is about the format on the page being worse. They are about everything around it — the tools that make the file and the software that has to open it once it leaves your site.

Do both open in every browser?

Yes. Every current major browser displays both WebP and AVIF. WebP has been supported the longer of the two, and AVIF arrived later and in stages — Chrome in 2020, Firefox in 2021, Safari in 2023, and Edge only in early 2024. By now that history mostly stopped mattering: on an up-to-date browser both just work. The safe pattern for either is a <picture> element that offers the modern format with a JPG or PNG fallback, so a rare old browser still gets an image.

So which should you use?

For most people, WebP. It captures the great majority of the page-weight win, it is quick to make, and it opens in more places if the file ever leaves the browser. AVIF is the right call when you are optimising a site you fully control, you want the smallest possible files, and you can absorb slower encoding — or when you specifically need HDR and wide colour that WebP cannot store. Many sites do both: AVIF first, WebP as the fallback, JPG underneath. For the wider map of how these formats relate to JPG and PNG, our field guide to image formats lays them out side by side, and PNG vs WebP covers the transparency-specific case.

Can you make each on babapic?

WebP, yes; AVIF, not yet. babapic's converters read JPG, PNG, WebP, and HEIC, and none of them write AVIF, so the closest modern format you can produce here is WebP — which for most uses is the pragmatic pick anyway. JPG to WebP and PNG to WebP convert a photo or a whole folder in your browser, with a quality slider that reaches lossless at 1. If you have been handed a WebP your software won't open, WebP to JPG goes the other way, and if you would rather keep your current format and just cut the weight, Compress Image does that without changing the format. Everything runs on your device — nothing is uploaded. More explainers like this live in the guides.

FAQ

Is AVIF better than WebP?
On file size and colour depth, usually yes — AVIF tends to be smaller at the same quality and can hold HDR and wider colour that WebP can't. WebP wins on encoding speed and on support in software outside the browser. For a typical website either is a solid win over JPG.

Should I use WebP or AVIF for my website?
WebP for most sites — it is easier to produce and more widely supported, and it captures most of the size saving. Choose AVIF when you control the pipeline and want the smallest files, ideally serving it with a WebP fallback in a <picture> element.

Does WebP or AVIF lose quality?
Only if you choose lossy. Both offer a lossless mode that is pixel-identical to the original, and both offer lossy modes that trade a little detail for a much smaller file. For most web images a lossy setting looks the same and weighs far less.