Why WebP Is Replacing PNG and JPG on the Modern Web | Reformat | Reformat
Images
Why WebP Is Replacing PNG and JPG on the Modern Web
WebP adoption has exploded since Safari added support. Learn why major platforms are switching from PNG and JPG to WebP, the real-world performance gains, and whether you should make the switch.
For years, WebP was the format everyone recommended but few actually used. The reason was simple: Safari did not support it, and ignoring Apple's browser meant ignoring a large chunk of the web.
That changed in September 2022 when Safari 16 added full WebP support. Overnight, WebP became universally supported across every major browser. Since then, adoption has accelerated rapidly:
Google serves all YouTube thumbnails as WebP
Facebook and Instagram converted billions of images to WebP
WordPress added default WebP output in version 6.1
Shopify automatically converts product images to WebP
The writing is on the wall: WebP is becoming the default image format for the web.
The Numbers: How Much Smaller Is WebP?
The file size savings are substantial and consistent:
Scenario
JPG Size
PNG Size
WebP Size
Savings
Product photo
245 KB
—
162 KB
34%
Screenshot
—
890 KB
310 KB
65%
Hero banner
1.2 MB
—
780 KB
35%
Logo (transparent)
—
42 KB
18 KB
57%
Blog thumbnail
180 KB
—
115 KB
36%
On average, WebP is 25-35% smaller than JPG and 50-70% smaller than PNG at equivalent visual quality. For a typical e-commerce site with 500 product images, that can mean saving 20-40 MB of bandwidth per page load.
Try These Tools
Mentioned in this article — free, no sign-up required.
A common misconception is that WebP is a compromise. In reality, it supports every feature of both formats:
From JPG:
Lossy compression with adjustable quality
Progressive loading
EXIF metadata
From PNG:
Lossless compression mode
Alpha transparency
24-bit color depth
Unique to WebP:
Animation support (replacing GIF with 90% smaller files)
Both lossy AND lossless in the same format
Near-lossless mode — a middle ground unique to WebP
This means there is no technical reason to prefer JPG or PNG over WebP for web delivery.
Performance Impact on Core Web Vitals
Google's Core Web Vitals directly impact search rankings, and image optimization is one of the biggest levers:
Largest Contentful Paint (LCP): Smaller images load faster. Switching hero images from JPG to WebP can reduce LCP by 200-500ms — often the difference between a "good" and "needs improvement" score.
Cumulative Layout Shift (CLS): WebP supports the same width/height attributes as JPG and PNG, so there is no impact on layout stability.
Total Blocking Time (TBT): Smaller images mean less network contention, freeing the main thread for JavaScript execution.
For SEO-conscious sites, the switch to WebP is one of the highest-impact, lowest-effort optimizations available.
When NOT to Use WebP
WebP is not perfect for every situation:
Print production — CMYK color space is not supported. Stick with TIFF or high-quality JPG.
Professional photography — Photographers should archive in RAW or TIFF. WebP is for delivery, not archival.
Email campaigns — Some older email clients do not render WebP. JPG remains the safe choice for email.
Extremely simple graphics — SVG is better for icons, logos, and simple illustrations (it is vector-based and often smaller).
The rule of thumb: use WebP for web delivery, keep originals in their native format for editing and archival.
How to Start Using WebP Today
The easiest ways to adopt WebP:
1.Use Reformat's free converter — drag and drop your JPG or PNG files and download WebP versions instantly
2.HTML picture element — serve WebP with JPG fallback:
3.CDN auto-conversion — services like Cloudflare, Vercel, and Imgix can automatically serve WebP to supported browsers
4.Build tools — Webpack, Vite, and Next.js all have plugins for automatic WebP generation
The migration does not need to happen all at once. Start with your largest images (hero banners, product photos) for the biggest immediate impact.
FAQ
Will converting to WebP lose quality?
With lossy compression, there is a quality reduction — but at quality 80+, it is virtually imperceptible. Use lossless mode if you need pixel-perfect conversion.
What about AVIF? Is it better than WebP?
AVIF offers even better compression (20-30% smaller than WebP) but encoding is slower and browser support, while growing, is not yet universal. WebP is the pragmatic choice today; AVIF is the future.
Does Google favor WebP in search rankings?
Not directly. But WebP improves page speed, which IS a ranking factor. Faster pages rank higher, and WebP makes pages faster.
