AVIF vs WEBP: Comparing Two Next-Generation Image Formats

WEBP was the modern challenger to JPG and PNG for a while, and now has its own challenger in AVIF — a newer format that generally compresses even more efficiently. Understanding what separates the two matters if you're deciding which one to actually adopt for a website today, since "newer and more efficient" doesn't automatically mean "the right choice right now."

Compression: AVIF generally has the edge

AVIF, based on the AV1 video codec's image compression technology, generally achieves smaller file sizes than WEBP at a comparable visual quality — in many cases substantially smaller. For photographic content specifically, where AV1's compression techniques are particularly effective, the gap over WEBP can be significant. This is AVIF's core selling point: it's simply more efficient at the same underlying job WEBP already does well.

Support is the real differentiator right now

WEBP has had a head start and, as a result, broader support — most current browsers, a wide range of image editing software, and most content platforms handle it without issue. AVIF's support has been growing quickly and modern browsers handle it well, but it's a newer format, and some older software, certain image editing tools, and specific platforms haven't caught up yet. That gap is closing, but as of today it's real, and it's the main practical reason AVIF hasn't fully displaced WEBP the way WEBP partially displaced JPG and PNG.

Encoding speed is a genuine practical difference

AVIF's more sophisticated compression comes at a cost: encoding an image to AVIF is generally slower than encoding the same image to WEBP. For a one-off conversion this is barely noticeable, but for a site or service processing large volumes of images, the encoding time difference is a real operational consideration, not just a theoretical one.

A practical way to decide

If maximum compression matters most and you're confident your audience's browsers and your own tooling support AVIF (which is increasingly likely for a general web audience), it's worth adopting for the extra efficiency. If broad compatibility matters more, or you're working with software that doesn't yet handle AVIF smoothly, WEBP remains the safer modern choice with almost as much of the efficiency benefit and considerably wider support today. Many sites reasonably use both — serving AVIF where supported and falling back to WEBP or JPG otherwise — though that's a bigger technical undertaking than a one-off format choice.

AVIF to JPG handles converting AVIF files into the most universally compatible format when you need broad reach over maximum compression, and the image converter covers the rest of the format landscape, including WEBP, if you're deciding between all three.