Convert JPG to WebP Online
Re-encode JPG photos as WebP for dramatically smaller files at the same visible quality, plus the transparency and animation JPG has never supported. Runs in your browser with no upload.
Start ConvertingWhy Convert JPG to WebP?
Most JPGs carry a lot of slack
Camera and export JPGs are rarely stored efficiently. Re-encoding our 5.4 MB test photo to WebP at visually identical quality left 1.0 MB, an 82% saving.
Better Core Web Vitals
Images are usually the largest element on a page. Smaller ones move Largest Contentful Paint directly.
Universal browser support
Chrome, Firefox, Safari and Edge have all shipped WebP since 2020. Only pre-2020 browsers need a JPG fallback.
No upload required
The re-encode runs on your device through canvas, so it is instant and exempt from the daily limit.
JPG vs WebP, measured
WebP is usually sold as a 25 to 35% saving over JPG. Our own numbers do not support that, and it is worth being straight about why. The large saving you get converting a photo is real, but it comes from re-encoding a wastefully stored JPG, not from WebP being a dramatically better codec. Given the same photo and a good JPEG encoder, the two formats land within a few percent of each other.
| Measure | Your source JPG | WebP | JPG, re-encoded |
|---|---|---|---|
| File size | 5,486 KB | 1,006 KB | 983 KB |
| Saving against the source | -- | 82% smaller | 82% smaller |
| Quality against the source (SSIM) | 1.000 | 0.989 | 0.990 |
| Transparency | No | Yes | No |
| Animation | No | Yes | No |
| Opens in anything, any age | Yes | Since 2020 | Yes |
One 3840 x 2160 photograph, 5.4 MB as supplied. WebP written at quality 92, the setting this converter uses; the third column is the same photo through mozjpeg at quality 90, chosen because it scores the same structural similarity as the WebP. So the honest reason to pick WebP is transparency, animation and flat-colour graphics, where it genuinely wins. On photographs alone, a well-encoded JPG is competitive.
Frequently Asked Questions
What quality is the WebP written at?
Quality 92, which is visually lossless for photographs. Lossless WebP was a deliberate choice against: for a photo it often produces a file larger than the JPG you started with, defeating the point.
Am I losing quality by re-encoding?
Slightly. The JPG was already lossy, and WebP re-compresses that result. At quality 92 the second generation is hard to see, but keep your original if you may need to re-edit.
Should I still serve a JPG fallback?
Only if you support browsers older than 2020. Otherwise a plain <img> pointing at the WebP is fine. Use a <picture> element if you need both.
Does this work for many files at once?
Yes. Up to 10 per batch, all converted locally, with a ZIP download for the set.