AVIF vs WebP: Which Image Format Should You Use?

The Post-JPG Era

For 25 years, JPG was the only image format anyone thought about for the web. That changed when Google released WebP in 2010 and again when AVIF arrived in 2019. Both formats compress images more efficiently than JPG, both support transparency and animation, and both have strong browser support today. So which one should you use?

The short answer is: it depends on your audience and how aggressively you want to push performance. The long answer requires looking at a few tradeoffs.

How They Compare on File Size

AVIF wins on pure compression efficiency. At matched visual quality, an AVIF file is typically 50 percent smaller than a JPG and 20 to 30 percent smaller than a WebP. For huge hero images and photo-heavy pages, those savings add up.

WebP is close behind. It is usually 25 to 35 percent smaller than JPG and plenty good for most real-world use. The difference between WebP and AVIF is real but not life-changing for typical website images.

How They Compare on Browser Support

WebP has broader support. Every modern browser — Chrome, Safari, Firefox, Edge, Opera — handles WebP natively. Total coverage is around 97 percent of global web traffic.

AVIF support is growing fast but still lags slightly. All Chromium browsers (Chrome, Edge, Opera) and Firefox support it, and Safari added support in 2022 (iOS 16 / macOS Ventura). Coverage sits around 92 to 95 percent depending on the region. The gap is older iOS devices and some legacy setups.

How They Compare on Encoding Speed

WebP encodes fast. A 5-megapixel photo can be converted in well under a second on modern hardware.

AVIF encodes much more slowly because its compression algorithm is derived from the AV1 video codec, which is computationally heavy. The same photo might take 5 to 10 seconds to encode, or longer if you crank up the quality settings. This is why AVIF shines for content you encode once and serve millions of times (think CDN-hosted hero images) but is less practical for dynamic user-uploaded content where every file needs fast processing.

How They Compare on Decoding Speed

Both formats decode almost as fast as JPG on modern devices. On older phones, AVIF can take slightly longer to render, but the difference is imperceptible for single images and only noticeable on image-heavy pages with dozens of them.

A Practical Decision Framework

Use WebP if: - You want broad browser support with minimal hassle - You are processing many images quickly (bulk conversion, user uploads) - You need a balance of good compression and fast encoding - Your team is not ready to set up dual-format fallbacks

Use AVIF if: - You want maximum compression for hero images and photography - You are willing to maintain a WebP or JPG fallback for older browsers - You have time to encode once and serve many times - Every kilobyte matters (high-traffic sites, mobile-first audiences)

The Pragmatic Answer: Use Both

The most future-proof setup is to serve AVIF to browsers that support it and WebP to those that do not, with a JPG fallback for the tiny slice of visitors still on very old devices. The HTML \