WebP vs JPG: which one should you actually use?

WebP arrived in 2010 promising smaller files at the same quality. More than a decade later, every modern browser supports it — yet most of the web still ships JPGs. Why? Let's break it down.

The headline numbers

At identical perceptual quality, WebP files are typically 25–35% smaller than JPG. On large hero images that often means saving hundreds of kilobytes per page view.

Where WebP wins

• Page weight. Smaller files mean faster paint, better Core Web Vitals, and lower CDN bills.
• Transparency. Unlike JPG, WebP supports an alpha channel — handy for product photography on white.
• Animation. WebP supports it natively at a fraction of the size of an animated GIF.

Where JPG still makes sense

• Email attachments and print workflows, where compatibility matters more than bytes.
• Editorial photography destined for older CMSs that still don't accept WebP.
• Camera‑native exports when you need EXIF metadata preserved exactly.

The pragmatic answer

Ship WebP everywhere on the open web, with a JPG fallback only when supporting truly ancient browsers. For everything else — email, slide decks, print — JPG is still a perfectly fine default.