Both WebP and AVIF promise smaller files than JPEG and PNG. But which one actually delivers the best compression for your use case? We tested both.
AVIF wins on compression ratio — it produces files 20-30% smaller than WebP at equivalent quality. But WebP wins on compatibility, encoding speed, and real-world adoption. For most websites in 2026, WebP is still the safer choice.
We compressed a 1200px photo (original JPEG: 1.2 MB) using both formats at default settings:
| Format | Quality Setting | File Size | Compression Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| Original JPEG | 100% | 1,228 KB | Baseline |
| WebP | 85% | 172 KB | 86% smaller |
| AVIF | 85% | 118 KB | 90% smaller |
| WebP | 75% | 104 KB | 91.5% smaller |
| AVIF | 75% | 79 KB | 93.6% smaller |
For lossless compression of graphics and UI elements, we tested a 1920x1080 screenshot:
| Format | Mode | File Size |
|---|---|---|
| PNG | Lossless | 842 KB |
| WebP | Lossless | 486 KB |
| AVIF | Lossless | 378 KB |
WebP works in every modern browser. AVIF still has gaps (some CMS platforms, older Safari versions). The 20% size advantage of AVIF isn't worth a broken image for 5% of users.
AVIF supports 12-bit color, HDR, and film grain synthesis. For photography portfolios and high-end visuals, AVIF is the future.
Product images need universal compatibility. A 0.3-second faster page load from AVIF doesn't offset the risk of a customer seeing a broken image.
If you're storing images long-term and compatibility isn't urgent, AVIF's superior compression saves significant disk space.
If you're converting images for web use right now, convert to WebP. It offers the best balance of compression and compatibility. When AVIF reaches near-100% browser support (likely 2027-2028), it will become the default.