WebP vs AVIF — Modern Image Formats Compared
Quick answer: AVIF compresses 20–30% smaller than WebP at the same quality, but WebP is supported in slightly more environments. Use AVIF if you can serve a fallback; use WebP as a universal modern default.
WebP and AVIF are both modern formats designed to replace JPG and PNG on the web, and both do it well. The choice between them is less about quality — both are excellent — and more about how much smaller you need the file and how cautious you need to be about older software opening it.
| Feature | WebP | AVIF |
|---|
| Codec | VP8 (still) | AV1 (still) |
| Typical size vs JPG | ~25–35% smaller | ~50% smaller |
| Transparency | Yes | Yes |
| Animation | Yes | Yes |
| Browser support (2026) | All major | All major except old Safari |
How much smaller is AVIF, really?
On most photographic content AVIF lands roughly 20–30% smaller than WebP at a matched quality level, and around half the size of an equivalent JPG. The gap is widest on detailed images — landscapes, textures, busy scenes — and narrowest on simple flat graphics, where both formats are already tiny.
That saving is real but it comes at a cost: AVIF takes noticeably longer to encode. For a handful of hero images that's irrelevant; for a batch of thousands the slower encode can matter.
Which should you actually ship?
If your site can serve a fallback (most CMSs and image pipelines can), AVIF is the better default for photographs because the bandwidth saving compounds across every visitor. If you want a single modern format that just works everywhere without a fallback, WebP remains the safest universal choice in 2026.
For transparency and animation, both formats handle the job, so neither has an advantage there.
Convert anything to WebP with the free Convert to WebP tool — it runs entirely in your browser.