WebP is usually described in marketing terms — “smaller, faster, better” — without much explanation of what’s actually happening or where it falls short. Here’s the substance.
What WebP actually is
WebP is an image format developed by Google and released in 2010, designed to do the job of JPEG (lossy, photo-oriented) and PNG (lossless, graphics-oriented) with a single, newer codec that supports both modes plus transparency and animation. Its lossy compression is built on techniques originally developed for VP8 video encoding — predicting each block of pixels from neighboring blocks already encoded, which is a more sophisticated approach than JPEG’s independent 8x8 block encoding and is a meaningful part of why it compresses more efficiently.
The actual size numbers, by use case
- Photographs (lossy mode) vs. JPEG: roughly 25-35% smaller at equivalent visual quality. This is the most common use case and the most consistent, reliable win.
- Graphics and screenshots (lossless mode) vs. PNG: roughly 25-45% smaller, with zero quality loss either way — this is close to a free improvement whenever it’s available.
- Animations vs. GIF: often 50%+ smaller, because GIF is limited to a 256-color palette and comparatively primitive compression from the late 1980s, while WebP supports full color depth and much better inter-frame compression. This is one of the most underused WebP wins — a lot of GIF content on the web could shrink dramatically just by converting.
- Very small images (icons, favicons under ~32px): savings shrink close to zero, because there’s too little redundant data at that size for a more efficient algorithm to meaningfully outperform an older one.
Where WebP genuinely still has compatibility gaps
Browser support is not a real concern in 2026 — every browser released since roughly 2020 handles WebP natively, full stop. The gaps that remain are all outside the browser: some desktop image editing and viewing software (particularly older or less actively maintained tools), some versions of Microsoft Office when embedding images into Word or PowerPoint documents, certain email clients’ handling of inline images, and some third-party APIs or integrations that were built assuming JPEG/PNG only. None of these affect a WebP image displayed on a website, but they matter if the same file needs to travel outside a browser context.
When it’s genuinely not worth switching
If an image is very small (icons, tiny UI elements), the size difference between WebP and PNG/JPEG is negligible, and there’s no reason to take on any compatibility risk for a near-zero gain. If a file specifically needs to work in software you know doesn’t handle WebP well — a specific print workflow, a legacy system integration — keeping it as JPEG or PNG avoids friction that outweighs the file-size benefit. Beyond those cases, for anything served on the web, converting to WebP is close to a strictly better default.
Frequently asked questions
- Who made WebP and why does it compress better?
- WebP was developed by Google, first released in 2010, building on the same underlying video-compression techniques used in VP8 video encoding for the lossy mode. It's a genuinely newer codec than JPEG (1992) and PNG (1996), and compression technology has meaningfully improved in that time — better prediction of pixel values from neighboring pixels, more efficient entropy coding. It's not magic, it's a newer algorithm applying decades of additional codec research.
- Is WebP always better than JPEG and PNG?
- Not always. For typical photographs, WebP beats JPEG by roughly 25-35% at equivalent visual quality — a real, consistent win. For graphics and screenshots, lossless WebP beats PNG by roughly 25-45%, also a consistent win. Where it's not clearly better: very small images (icons under 32px) where the savings shrink to nearly nothing, and specific software compatibility needs where JPEG or PNG's near-universal support outside browsers still matters.
- Does WebP support animation like GIF?
- Yes, and this is an underused feature — animated WebP files are typically dramatically smaller than the equivalent GIF for the same animation, because GIF's compression is decades older and limited to a 256-color palette, while WebP supports full color depth and much more efficient inter-frame compression. Converting an animated GIF to animated WebP is one of the largest, most consistent size wins available for any image format conversion.
- What browsers and software actually don't support WebP in 2026?
- Every browser released since roughly 2020 (Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge) supports WebP fully, so browser compatibility is essentially a solved problem for pure web use. The remaining gaps are outside the browser: some older desktop image viewers and editors, certain versions of Microsoft Office when embedding images in documents, some email clients' inline image rendering, and a shrinking set of third-party integrations and APIs. If your image needs to work in one of those specific contexts, verify support before committing to WebP-only.
- Is there a downside to converting everything to WebP by default?
- The main practical downside is workflow friction, not image quality: if you or collaborators use software that doesn't handle WebP well, or if downstream systems (some CMS plugins, some print pipelines) expect JPEG or PNG specifically, converting everything to WebP creates compatibility work you wouldn't otherwise have. For pure web delivery, this is rarely an issue; for files that also need to be used outside a browser, it's worth checking first.