WebP vs PNG
WebP and PNG are both in wide use and are chosen for different reasons. This page sets them against each other on the things that decide between them, and links to the converters for both directions — every one of which runs in your browser, with the file never uploaded.
The short answer
For a photograph, WebP wins outright and it is not close: a quarter to a third smaller than PNG would manage, at quality nobody looking at the page will question. For flat graphics — logos, icons, screenshots, anything with text — WebP is still usually smaller, but the margin narrows and PNG's guarantee of losing nothing starts to matter more than the kilobytes.
The real question is not which compresses better but who has to open the file. Every browser reads WebP and has since 2020. A great deal of desktop software still does not, and that is the whole reason people arrive here with a WebP they cannot open. If the file is going into a web page you control, use WebP. If it is going to a person, use PNG.
One practical note that decides more cases than either argument above: WebP's lossless mode exists and this site's encoder does not write it. If you convert a PNG to WebP here you are getting the lossy kind, which is what almost everyone wants and is not what somebody archiving artwork wants. For that, keep the PNG.
Side by side
| Property | WebP | PNG |
|---|---|---|
| Compression | Lossless or lossy | Lossless |
| Colour | 8 bits per channel | 8 bits per channel |
| Transparency | Full alpha channel | Full alpha channel |
| Animation | Yes | No |
| Keeps EXIF | Yes | Yes |
| Browser support | Chrome 32, Firefox 65, Safari 14 | Every browser since 1997 |
| Size of a photograph | 25 to 35 percent smaller than a JPG | 3 to 5 times a JPG |
| Published | 2010 | 1996 |
Where they actually differ
- They compress differently, and that is the difference behind most of the others: one keeps every pixel exactly as it was given, the other discards detail to be smaller and cannot put it back.
- Only WebP holds more than one frame. Converting an animation to the other keeps the first frame and discards the rest, silently.
- Browser support is not equal. PNG is read everywhere and has been for years; the other is either newer or, in one case, not read by browsers at all.
- For the same photograph at comparable visible quality, WebP produces the smaller file — usually by enough to matter on a page carrying several images.
- They are 14 years apart, and most of what separates them is what had been learned in between.
What people get wrong
- Converting an animation into the still format keeps the first frame and drops the rest, without warning. It is the easiest mistake to make here and the easiest to miss, because the result opens perfectly well.
- Expect the file to change size substantially in one direction. That is the formats behaving as designed rather than a failed conversion, and it catches people who assume a conversion is roughly size-neutral.
Which to choose
- Choose WebP when
- Choose WebP for images on a site you control, where smaller files load faster and the browser is the only thing that has to read them.
- Choose PNG when
- Choose PNG for anything you are sending to somebody else, for images that will be edited further, and wherever an exact pixel-for-pixel copy is the point.
Converting between them
Common questions
- Is WebP replacing PNG?
- On the web, largely yes — WebP does everything PNG does and produces smaller files, so new sites tend to serve it. Away from the browser, no. PNG opens in everything, has done for thirty years, and remains the safer format for a file that will be handed around rather than served.
- Which of WebP and PNG is better?
- Neither, in general — if one were simply better the other would have disappeared. They are good at different things, and the short answer above says which is which. The useful question is what the file has to do next: be edited, be published, be opened by somebody else, or fit inside a size limit.
- Does converting between them lose anything?
- It depends on the direction. Converting into a format that stores everything loses nothing but does not recover anything either; converting into one that discards detail loses a little each time. The table above says which of these two does which.
- Can I convert back afterwards?
- The file will convert back, but whether it comes back unchanged depends on the direction. Between two formats that store everything, a round trip is lossless. Where one of them discards detail, that detail is gone and the return journey cannot invent it.
- Can I use both?
- On a web page, often yes, and it is usually the right answer: serve the smaller modern format and list an older one as a fallback so each browser takes what it understands. For a file you are handing to a person, pick one — the one they can open.
- Which one does my software support?
- The side-by-side table above says which browsers read each, which is the part that varies most. Desktop support is harder to state in general and tends to lag browsers by years, so if the file is going to somebody else, the older and more widely read of the two is the safer choice.
- Is converting between them free?
- Yes, with no account and no limit on how many files you convert. Every converter linked from this page runs in your browser: the file is read from your device, converted by code running on it, and handed back as a download.
- Is my file uploaded?
- No. There is no conversion server here to upload it to, and no third-party service is involved. You can confirm it yourself: open your browser's developer tools, switch to the Network panel with no filter, and run a conversion — no request carries your file.