JPG to WebP
The straightforward win: same-looking image, meaningfully smaller file.
Convert your images
Lower quality means a smaller file. Applies to JPG and WebP only.
No images yet. Add some to get started.
These files are processed locally. Nothing is uploaded.
What changes when you convert JPG to WebP
This is the least complicated conversion on the site, because there is no feature to lose. WebP supports everything JPG does, so moving a photo from JPG to WebP is a pure size reduction — typically 25-35% at matched visual quality.
That saving comes directly out of your page weight, which is why WebP is now the default recommendation for photographs on the web. Images are usually the largest part of a page, and shaving a third off them moves Core Web Vitals more than most code optimisations will.
Because JPG has already been compressed once, this is a second-generation encode. The result will not be perfect, and pushing the quality slider down too far will compound the earlier loss into visible artifacts. Quality values between 75 and 85 are usually the sweet spot for photographs that started life as JPG.
Convert now
- Migrating an existing JPG image library to a faster-loading format
- Cutting page weight for blog posts and landing pages full of photos
- Preparing hero images where every hundred kilobytes is worth chasing
- Reducing bandwidth costs on a high-traffic site
JPG vs WebP
| JPG | WebP | |
|---|---|---|
| Compression | Lossy | Lossy, more efficient |
| Transparency | Not supported | Supported |
| Typical size | Baseline | 25-35% smaller |
| Best for | Universal compatibility | Websites, apps |
Other JPG conversions
Convert back
Frequently asked questions
Does converting from JPG to WebP lose more quality?
It re-encodes, so there is some additional loss. Keep the quality slider at 75-85 and the difference is generally invisible at normal viewing sizes. Going lower compounds JPG’s existing compression into visible blocking.
How much smaller will the file actually be?
Typically 25-35% at matched visual quality. The exact figure depends on the image: busy, detailed photographs benefit most, while images that were already heavily compressed as JPG have less left to give.
Should I convert the original or a JPEG that has already been re-saved?
Always the highest-quality source you have. Every re-save of a JPG discards more detail permanently, so a file that has been through several edits will already be degraded before it reaches this converter.
Can I still use WebP if I need broad compatibility?
For browsers, yes — Chrome, Safari, Firefox and Edge all support it. The gaps are in older desktop applications, some print workflows and a few CMS upload forms. If you are targeting those, keep JPG.