Convert an Image to WebP
WebP typically delivers the same picture as a JPEG in a quarter to a third less space, and it keeps PNG-style transparency too. Convert your JPGs and PNGs here without paying anything and without any of them leaving your machine - the encoding runs locally, so batches finish as fast as your hardware allows.
Loading the tool…
How it works
- Drop in JPG or PNG images - single files or a whole set.
- Choose a quality level, or switch to lossless mode for graphics and logos.
- Compare the before and after sizes shown for each file.
- Download the WebP files individually or zipped together.
Worth knowing
The case for WebP on the web is straightforward arithmetic. Its lossy mode predicts pixel blocks from their neighbours before compressing the difference, which JPEG never does, and the saving lands around 25-35% at equivalent visual quality. Its lossless mode routinely beats PNG by a quarter as well. On a page with twenty images, switching formats is often worth more than every other optimisation combined, and it shows up directly in Largest Contentful Paint.
Compatibility stopped being a real objection years ago. Every major browser has decoded WebP since roughly 2020, when Safari joined in with macOS Big Sur, so serving it plainly - no picture-element fallbacks, no content negotiation - is safe for essentially any current audience. The stragglers now are not browsers but a shrinking set of desktop tools and CMS uploaders, which is worth checking only if your images pass through one.
One format, two very different modes, and choosing correctly matters. Photographs belong in lossy mode at quality 75-85, where WebP hides its compression more gracefully than JPEG hides its own. Screenshots, logos, diagrams and UI art belong in lossless mode, which preserves every pixel and still undercuts the equivalent PNG. Transparency works in both modes - unlike JPEG - so a cut-out product shot can finally be both small and see-through.
A quality slider warning that applies to any converter, not just this one: WebP quality numbers do not correspond to JPEG quality numbers. WebP at 80 looks noticeably better than JPEG at 80. If you are matching an existing JPEG pipeline, try dropping the WebP setting five to ten points below the JPEG value you used and compare - you will usually find the smaller file still wins on quality.
WebP lossy compression is built on VP8 video intraframe coding - each 16x16 block is predicted from the blocks above and beside it before the residual is compressed. That spatial prediction is the structural reason it beats JPEG by roughly 30% and not merely an implementation tweak.
What this tool will not do
- It will not create animated WebP - animation input and output are out of scope for this converter.
- It cannot promise savings on every file: an image already heavily compressed, or a tiny icon, may come out near the same size.
- It will not embed colour profiles beyond sRGB; wide-gamut sources are converted to sRGB during encoding.
Which WebP mode fits which image
| Source material | Recommended mode | Typical saving vs original |
|---|---|---|
| Photograph (JPG source) | Lossy, quality 75-85 | 25-35% smaller |
| Screenshot with text | Lossless | 20-30% smaller than PNG |
| Logo or icon with transparency | Lossless | 15-25% smaller than PNG |
| Cut-out photo with alpha | Lossy + alpha | 60-80% smaller than PNG |
Questions people ask
Is WebP really better than JPEG for websites?
For delivery, almost always: expect files 25-35% smaller at matching visual quality, which translates directly into faster loads and better Core Web Vitals. For archiving originals or for print workflows, keep a JPEG or lossless master as well.
Do all browsers support WebP now?
Yes - Chrome, Firefox, Edge and Safari have all decoded it since about 2020. You can serve WebP files directly without providing a JPEG fallback unless you must support very old operating systems.
Does WebP support transparency like PNG?
It does, in both lossy and lossless modes, which is a genuine advantage over JPEG. A transparent PNG converted to lossy WebP with alpha is frequently 60-80% smaller while looking identical on the page.
What WebP quality setting should I choose?
Start at 80 for photos and adjust by eye using the preview. Because the WebP scale is more generous than the JPEG scale, 80 here looks better than 80 did in your JPEG export, so resist the urge to push it to 95.
Why will my CMS not accept the WebP file I made?
Some older content systems and form validators still whitelist only jpg, png and gif extensions even though every browser could display the file. That is a policy on their side, not a defect in the file; convert to JPG for that upload and use WebP where you control the stack.
Should I use lossless WebP for photographs?
Rarely. Lossless mode on a photo produces a file several times larger than lossy mode with no visible benefit at screen sizes. Reserve lossless for graphics, text-heavy images and anything you will edit again.
Usually the next step
More in Convert
This page processed nothing on any server — there is no server. The technical explanation.