JPG or WebP
For pictures on a website, WebP. For a file you are sending to someone or taking to a print shop, JPG. Here is why.
| JPG | WebP | |
|---|---|---|
| Year | 1992 | 2010 |
| Weight at equal quality | baseline | about a quarter less |
| Transparency | no | yes |
| Animation | no | yes |
| Browsers | all | all current ones |
| Programs and services | all take it | some refuse |
What WebP is
A Google format from 2010. It grew out of a video codec: a picture is encoded much like a single frame of video.
It does lossy and lossless compression, plus transparency and animation, so it covers what JPG, PNG and GIF do between them.
How much lighter it is
Google's own measurements claimed 25–34% against JPEG at comparable quality. On real photos the win is more modest, usually 20–30%, but it is almost always there.
For a website that is money in the bank: pages load faster, and load speed is something search engines count.
Where WebP gets refused
Browsers all display it. Past that the exceptions start: some editors, older viewers, certain classifieds sites, photo printing services, the odd corporate system.
Which is why a photo you are handing to another person, or to a printer, is better off as JPG. The 1992 format beats the 2010 one in exactly one respect, and it happens to be the decisive one: it will open.
What to pick
Putting pictures on your own site: WebP, with a JPG fallback for elderly clients.
Sending a photo to a client, a print shop or a marketplace: JPG.
Downloaded something that turned out to be WebP and will not open in the program you need? Convert it to JPG. It will gain a little weight in the process, and that is normal.