JPG to WebP
Roughly a third smaller at the same visible quality. The right move for a website, and the wrong one for anything you are sending to a person.
Runs on your device — images are never uploadedDrop your images here
or click to browse — as many as you like
JPG · JPEG
Opens anywhere. No transparency, and each save loses a little.
90 is the sensible default. Below about 70 the edges of text and flat colour start to show it.
Converting is not compressing. Going to PNG makes most photographs larger, and no conversion can put back detail an earlier JPG already discarded.
How it works
Three steps, no account, and the images never leave your computer.
Drop the JPG files in
As many as you like. Anything your browser can open is accepted, so a mixed folder is fine too.
WebP is already selected
Change it if you want something else, and adjust the quality if the format has one. The panel warns you if transparency is about to be lost.
Convert and save
One file downloads on its own; several come down as a ZIP. Each shows whether it ended up smaller or larger than it started.
Why people do this conversion
Speeding up a website
Images are most of what a page weighs. A third off every photograph is the largest single improvement available for most sites.
Passing a page-speed audit
Lighthouse and PageSpeed Insights explicitly flag JPGs and tell you to serve them in a modern format. This is that format.
Cutting hosting or bandwidth costs
A third less data leaving the server every time a page loads adds up on a site with real traffic.
Making a gallery load faster on phones
Where connections are slow and images are many, the saving is felt rather than measured.
A third off, and the one catch
WebP produces files about 25 to 35% smaller than JPG at a quality nobody can distinguish in a side-by-side test. For images on a website that is a straightforward win: pages load faster, visitors on slow connections stay, and search engines notice.
Every browser in current use reads WebP — Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, and the browsers on every phone sold in the last several years. On the web there is essentially no compatibility argument left.
The catch is everywhere that is not a browser
This is the same reason people arrive at the reverse conversion. WebP is a delivery format. Send one to a colleague and it may not open. Upload it to a form and it may be rejected. Take it to a print shop and expect a blank look.
So the rule is simple: WebP for images you are publishing, JPG for images you are sending.
Converting an existing JPG is a second compression
Worth being clear about. Your JPG has already lost detail. Re-encoding it as WebP loses a little more — not much at the default quality, but it is a second generation.
If you still have the original — a camera RAW, a PNG export, an untouched file from a designer — encode WebP from that instead and you get one generation of loss rather than two. If all you have is the JPG, converting it is still worth doing; just do it once and keep the JPG.
| Quality setting | Result |
|---|---|
| 95 and above | Barely smaller than the JPG. Not worth the conversion |
| 85 to 90 | The useful range. Around a third smaller, no visible difference |
| 75 to 85 | Noticeably smaller. Fine for photographs, visible on text |
| Below 70 | Blotches in flat areas like skies. Only for thumbnails |
Serving it properly
If this is for a website, the professional approach is to offer both and let the browser choose — a <picture> element with a WebP source and a JPG fallback. In practice, for anything built in the last few years, serving WebP alone is fine.
Common questions
How much smaller will the files be?
Typically 25 to 35% at the same visible quality. Photographs benefit most; images that are already small or already heavily compressed benefit least.
Do all browsers support WebP?
Yes. Chrome, Firefox, Safari and Edge all read it, as do the browsers on every phone sold in recent years. On the web, compatibility is no longer a reason to avoid it.
Does converting an existing JPG lose quality?
A little, since it is a second compression. If you still have the original file, encode from that instead. If not, converting once is still worth it.
Should I send WebP files to people?
No. Use JPG for anything going to a person or an upload form. WebP is for images you are publishing on a page.
What quality setting should I use?
85 to 90. Above that the saving disappears; below about 75 the compression starts to show in skies and other flat areas.
More tools
Every one of them runs on your device. No uploads, no accounts.