WebP vs PNG vs JPG: What the Difference Actually Costs You

These three formats get compared constantly, usually in a list that just says "WebP is smaller" without explaining what you're trading away to get there. Here's the actual difference, and when each one genuinely wins.

The core distinction: lossy vs lossless

JPG is lossy. It discards some image detail (in ways mostly imperceptible to the human eye) to shrink the file. It has no transparency support at all. Every re-save of a JPG discards a bit more detail, which is why repeatedly editing and re-saving the same JPG gradually degrades it.

PNG is lossless. Every pixel is preserved exactly as the original, with no exceptions. This makes PNG the right choice for anything where sharp edges or exact colors matter: screenshots, logos, diagrams, text-heavy images. The trade-off is size. A photograph saved as PNG can be five to ten times larger than the same photograph as a JPG, because lossless compression is inherently less efficient for the kind of smooth, complex color gradients a real photo contains. PNG also supports full transparency (an alpha channel), which is why it's the standard for logos and icons that need to sit on any background color.

WebP does both. It supports a lossy mode (competing directly with JPG) and a lossless mode (competing directly with PNG), plus transparency in both modes. In lossy mode, WebP typically produces files 25-35% smaller than an equivalent-quality JPG. In lossless mode, it typically runs about 25% smaller than an equivalent PNG. It's not a different trade-off than JPG or PNG. It's a more efficient version of both of their trade-offs at once.

So why doesn't everyone just use WebP for everything?

Mostly compatibility history, and that history is now mostly resolved. WebP support used to be inconsistent across browsers and older image-editing software; as of 2026, all current major browsers support it fully, and the remaining gap is almost entirely old, unmaintained software rather than anything a typical user will run into. The practical reasons to still reach for JPG or PNG specifically are:

JPG: universal compatibility with genuinely ancient software, or when a platform explicitly requires it (some upload forms and print services still only accept JPG)
PNG: same universal-compatibility reasoning, plus any workflow where you need guaranteed pixel-perfect lossless quality and don't want to think about whether the receiving end supports WebP

The practical answer

For a photo you're putting on a website: WebP, lossy mode. For a logo or screenshot you're putting on a website: WebP, lossless mode, or PNG if you want maximum compatibility insurance and the file size difference doesn't matter. For anything you're sending somewhere that explicitly wants JPG or PNG, an upload form, an old piece of software, a print shop, give it what it's asking for rather than fighting the requirement.

Converting

WebP to PNG· PNG to WebP· Compress Image

Related guide

If the image in question is a photo straight off an iPhone, it's probably HEIC, not JPG or PNG in the first place. See Why Won't My iPhone Photos Open on Windows? for that specific case.