Is WebP really better than JPEG?

If you have used tools like Google’s PageSpeed Insights, you probably have run into a suggestion to use “next-gen image formats”, namely Google’s WebP image format. Google claims that their WebP format is 25 – 34% smaller than JPEG at equivalent quality.

[…]

I think Google’s result of 25-34% smaller files is mostly caused by the fact that they compared their WebP encoder to the JPEG reference implementation, Independent JPEG Group’s cjpeg, not Mozilla’s improved MozJPEG encoder. I decided to run some tests to see how cjpeg, MozJPEG and WebP compare. I also tested the new AVIF format, based on the open AV1 video codec. AVIF support is already in Firefox behind a flag and should be coming soon to Chrome if this ticket is to be believed.

Spoiler alert: WebP doesn’t really provide any benefits, and since websites generally use JPEG as a fallback anyway, you end up with having to store two images at the same time, defeating the purpose entirely.

26 Comments

  1. 2020-06-23 9:03 pm
    • 2020-06-24 11:48 am
      • 2020-06-24 1:47 pm
  2. 2020-06-23 11:03 pm
  3. 2020-06-23 11:56 pm
    • 2020-06-24 3:12 am
      • 2020-06-25 10:40 am
        • 2020-06-25 1:15 pm
  4. 2020-06-24 5:21 am
    • 2020-06-24 7:48 am
      • 2020-06-24 9:37 am
        • 2020-06-24 11:50 am
          • 2020-06-24 1:48 pm
          • 2020-06-25 9:00 am
          • 2020-06-25 12:27 pm
  5. 2020-06-24 8:31 am
    • 2020-06-24 11:51 am
  6. 2020-06-24 2:43 pm
    • 2020-06-24 3:37 pm
      • 2020-06-24 4:45 pm
  7. 2020-06-25 4:17 am
    • 2020-06-25 1:04 pm
      • 2020-06-26 4:43 am
        • 2020-06-26 9:41 am
  8. 2020-06-25 3:16 pm
  9. 2020-06-30 10:57 pm