How much smaller does WebP actually make a PNG?

It depends heavily on the image content. For photographs saved as PNG (which is common but not ideal — PNG's lossless compression doesn't suit photo content well), WebP in lossy mode typically cuts file size by 60-80%, similar to converting to JPEG but with better quality retention. For graphics, UI screenshots, and images with large flat-color areas, WebP's lossless mode typically saves 25-45% over PNG's own lossless compression, because WebP's compression algorithm is simply more efficient than PNG's, even doing the same lossless job.

Does WebP support transparency like PNG does?

Yes — WebP supports full alpha channel transparency in both its lossy and lossless modes, so converting a PNG with transparent areas (a logo, an icon, a cutout graphic) to WebP preserves that transparency correctly. This is one of the main reasons WebP can fully replace PNG for most web use cases, unlike JPEG, which has no transparency support at all.

When should I keep the PNG instead of converting?

Two cases. First, if the file needs to work in software that doesn't support WebP — some older image editors, certain print workflows, and a shrinking but nonzero set of tools still don't read WebP natively. Second, for pixel art or images with very sharp, high-contrast edges at small size (icons, favicons under 32px), where PNG's lossless compression and WebP's lossless compression perform similarly, so there's little to gain and one less compatibility risk to take on.

Is WebP actually supported everywhere now?

Every browser released since roughly 2020 supports WebP natively — Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge all display it without plugins, and this has been true long enough that browser support is no longer a real concern for web use. The remaining compatibility gaps are outside the browser: some desktop image viewers, older versions of Microsoft Office, and some third-party integrations (certain email clients rendering inline images) may not handle WebP correctly, which matters if the image needs to work outside a modern browser context.

Will converting to WebP make text in a screenshot blurry?

Only if you use lossy WebP compression. WebP's lossless mode preserves screenshot text and UI elements exactly, the same way PNG does, while still typically producing a smaller file. If your tool defaults to lossy WebP, check the quality setting or use a lossless/near-lossless option specifically for screenshots and anything with small text, since lossy compression on sharp text edges produces visible ringing artifacts.

Convert PNG to WebP | Private Tools

Convert image to WebP

Try this tool now

Drop a file here, or choose one

Convert your PNG using the tool above — the reasoning below will help you decide whether WebP is actually the right target for this particular image, since the savings and the trade-offs vary a lot by content type.

Why PNG is often the wrong format to begin with

PNG uses lossless compression, which is the right choice for graphics with flat colors, sharp edges, and text — screenshots, logos, icons, diagrams. It’s frequently the wrong choice for photographs, because lossless compression can’t discard the fine tonal variation a photo is full of, so a photographic PNG is often several times larger than an equivalent-quality JPEG or WebP. If you’re converting a PNG that’s actually a photo, you’ll typically see a much bigger size reduction than if you’re converting a genuine graphic.

What WebP actually saves, by content type

Photos saved as PNG: converting to lossy WebP typically saves 60-80%, comparable to converting to JPEG, but WebP tends to show fewer visible artifacts at the same file size because its compression algorithm handles gradients and fine detail more efficiently.
Graphics, UI screenshots, diagrams: converting to lossless WebP typically saves 25-45% over the original PNG, purely from a more efficient lossless algorithm — no quality is lost either way, this is a genuinely free reduction.
Pixel art and very small icons: savings shrink to near zero, since there’s so little redundant data at that scale for either format to compress away. Not worth the compatibility trade-off for images this small.

Transparency works the same way

WebP supports a full alpha channel in both lossy and lossless modes, so a PNG with transparent or semi-transparent areas — a logo on a transparent background, a UI cutout — converts cleanly with transparency intact. This is different from JPEG, which has no transparency support at all, and it’s the main reason WebP can be a full PNG replacement rather than just a photo-format alternative.

Where compatibility still matters

Every modern browser (all versions released since around 2020) displays WebP natively with no special handling required, so for anything destined purely for web display, compatibility is a non-issue today. The remaining gaps are outside the browser: some older desktop image viewers and editors, older Microsoft Office versions embedding images in documents, and some email clients rendering inline images may not handle WebP. If the image needs to work in one of those contexts specifically, check before converting.

Lossy vs. lossless — pick based on content, not habit

Lossy WebP gets the biggest file-size wins but will blur or ring around sharp edges and small text, the same failure mode as an over-compressed JPEG. For photographs, that trade-off is usually invisible and worth it. For screenshots, UI mockups, or anything with text, use lossless (or a very high-quality lossy setting) so edges and letterforms stay crisp — this is the single most common mistake when converting graphics to WebP.

Frequently asked questions

How much smaller does WebP actually make a PNG?: It depends heavily on the image content. For photographs saved as PNG (which is common but not ideal — PNG's lossless compression doesn't suit photo content well), WebP in lossy mode typically cuts file size by 60-80%, similar to converting to JPEG but with better quality retention. For graphics, UI screenshots, and images with large flat-color areas, WebP's lossless mode typically saves 25-45% over PNG's own lossless compression, because WebP's compression algorithm is simply more efficient than PNG's, even doing the same lossless job.
Does WebP support transparency like PNG does?: Yes — WebP supports full alpha channel transparency in both its lossy and lossless modes, so converting a PNG with transparent areas (a logo, an icon, a cutout graphic) to WebP preserves that transparency correctly. This is one of the main reasons WebP can fully replace PNG for most web use cases, unlike JPEG, which has no transparency support at all.
When should I keep the PNG instead of converting?: Two cases. First, if the file needs to work in software that doesn't support WebP — some older image editors, certain print workflows, and a shrinking but nonzero set of tools still don't read WebP natively. Second, for pixel art or images with very sharp, high-contrast edges at small size (icons, favicons under 32px), where PNG's lossless compression and WebP's lossless compression perform similarly, so there's little to gain and one less compatibility risk to take on.
Is WebP actually supported everywhere now?: Every browser released since roughly 2020 supports WebP natively — Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge all display it without plugins, and this has been true long enough that browser support is no longer a real concern for web use. The remaining compatibility gaps are outside the browser: some desktop image viewers, older versions of Microsoft Office, and some third-party integrations (certain email clients rendering inline images) may not handle WebP correctly, which matters if the image needs to work outside a modern browser context.
Will converting to WebP make text in a screenshot blurry?: Only if you use lossy WebP compression. WebP's lossless mode preserves screenshot text and UI elements exactly, the same way PNG does, while still typically producing a smaller file. If your tool defaults to lossy WebP, check the quality setting or use a lossless/near-lossless option specifically for screenshots and anything with small text, since lossy compression on sharp text edges produces visible ringing artifacts.