WebP vs JPG for Websites
WebP typically delivers 25–35% smaller files than JPG at equivalent visual quality. For websites where page load speed affects SEO and conversion rates, that difference adds up across hundreds of images.
File size comparison
In real-world tests, WebP averages 25–34% smaller than JPG at comparable quality. For a page with 10 hero and product images averaging 200KB as JPG, switching to WebP saves ~600KB per page load.
Browser support in 2026
WebP is supported by all modern browsers including Chrome, Firefox, Safari (since 2020), and Edge. Global support is above 97%. JPG fallbacks are only necessary for very old browsers or certain email clients.
Core Web Vitals impact
- Smaller images → faster LCP (Largest Contentful Paint) → better Google ranking signal
- Less bandwidth → faster on mobile connections
- Next.js, Nuxt, and modern frameworks auto-convert to WebP via their Image components
How to switch
- Convert existing JPGs with Irreva's converter
- Use <picture> tags with WebP source and JPG fallback if needed
- Configure your CDN or image service to serve WebP automatically
Frequently Asked Questions
Does WebP affect image quality?
At equivalent settings, WebP maintains the same perceptual quality as JPG in a smaller file. You can often raise the quality setting and still save file size.
Should I delete the original JPGs?
Keep originals. WebP is your delivery format — always maintain a high-quality source file.
Does Google rank WebP pages higher?
Not directly, but faster LCP from smaller images is a ranking signal. Google's PageSpeed Insights explicitly recommends WebP.