Quick comparison table
| Feature | WebP | AVIF |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Google (2010) | Alliance for Open Media (2019) |
| Compression vs JPEG | 25–35% smaller | 40–50% smaller |
| Browser support (2026) | ~97% global | ~92% global |
| Encoding speed | Fast | Slow (3-5× slower) |
| Max resolution | 16383×16383 px | Effectively unlimited |
| Animation support | Yes | Yes |
| HDR support | Limited | Full |
| Lossless support | Yes | Yes |
Compression quality comparison
In real-world tests with photographic images:
- At equivalent visual quality, AVIF files are typically 20–30% smaller than WebP.
- WebP shines at fast encoding — important for real-time image processing tools like PhotoResizer.in.
- AVIF excels with smooth gradients and skin tones, producing fewer banding artefacts.
- Both significantly outperform JPEG for photographic content.
When to use WebP
- You need maximum browser compatibility.
- Your workflow requires fast encoding/decoding.
- You're serving images through a CDN that supports WebP natively.
- You're converting from JPEG and need a drop-in replacement.
Convert images to WebP with our free WebP converter.
When to use AVIF
- Maximum file size reduction is your priority.
- Your audience uses modern browsers (Chrome 85+, Firefox 93+, Safari 16.4+).
- You're working with high-quality photography or HDR content.
- Encoding speed isn't critical (batch processing overnight).
The best strategy: Use both
Modern HTML gives you the <picture> element to serve the best format per browser:
<picture>
<source srcset="image.avif" type="image/avif">
<source srcset="image.webp" type="image/webp">
<img src="image.jpg" alt="Description">
</picture>This serves AVIF to browsers that support it, WebP as a fallback, and JPEG as the universal fallback.