JPG vs WebP

WebP is the newer, more efficient format — smaller files at the same visual quality, plus transparency support JPG never had. JPG remains the safer choice when you need guaranteed compatibility with very old software or hardware.

	JPG	WebP
Compression efficiency	Baseline	~25-35% smaller at equivalent visual quality
Transparency support	No — always fully opaque	Yes — full alpha channel
Lossless mode available	No — always lossy	Yes, in addition to lossy mode
Browser & software support	Universal, including very old software	All modern browsers; some older software lacks support
Best for	Maximum compatibility, print workflows, older software	Web images where smaller file size matters and you control the platform

Compression efficiency

JPG: Baseline

WebP: ~25-35% smaller at equivalent visual quality

Transparency support

JPG: No — always fully opaque

WebP: Yes — full alpha channel

Lossless mode available

JPG: No — always lossy

WebP: Yes, in addition to lossy mode

Browser & software support

JPG: Universal, including very old software

WebP: All modern browsers; some older software lacks support

Best for

JPG: Maximum compatibility, print workflows, older software

WebP: Web images where smaller file size matters and you control the platform

A check mark indicates the stronger option for that specific row only.

Why WebP files are smaller

WebP uses more modern compression techniques than JPG (which dates to the early 1990s), letting it represent the same image with less data. In FileBench's own conversions, JPG to WebP typically produces files 25-35% smaller at equivalent visual quality.

Transparency changes what's possible

JPG has never supported transparency — every JPG is fully opaque. WebP has a full alpha channel, so it can do everything PNG can for transparency while compressing more efficiently than PNG for photographic content.

Compatibility is the real tradeoff

JPG plays and displays absolutely everywhere, including decades-old software. WebP is supported by every current browser and most current image software, but very old tools or specific enterprise/legacy software may not open it — worth checking if your image needs to work in an unusual environment.

Is WebP always better than JPG?

For web use, generally yes — smaller files at the same quality, plus transparency. The exception is when you need guaranteed compatibility with very old or unusual software, where JPG's universal support wins.