JXL vs WebP: Which Should You Use?
JPEG XL compresses more than WebP and recompresses JPGs losslessly, but WebP is supported everywhere. Compare them before you switch.
Compare JPEG XL against WebP. JXL wins on compression, lossless JPG recompression and features, WebP wins on browser support and tooling maturity.
How it works
The short answer
JPEG XL compresses images 10 to 20 percent smaller than WebP at equal quality and can recompress existing JPGs with no quality loss. WebP runs in every modern browser and tool today, while JPEG XL support is still emerging. Choose WebP for shipping now, JPEG XL for future proofing.
How JPEG XL works
JPEG XL is a next generation format designed as a true JPEG replacement. It combines strong lossy compression, a lossless mode, and the ability to losslessly recompress an existing JPG, meaning the file shrinks without changing a single pixel of the original photo.
How WebP compares
WebP is the established modern web format, supported in every browser and most editing tools. It compresses well but lacks the lossless JPG recompression trick and does not beat JXL on size for photographic detail. It is the dependable choice available today.
The JPG recompression advantage
JXL can take an existing JPG and store it more compactly with zero quality loss. That is a unique practical benefit, since most sites already hold millions of JPGs. WebP cannot offer this; converting to WebP re-encodes and can lose a little detail.
Compatibility gap
WebP is supported everywhere modern. JPEG XL is still not in all browsers, which is the main reason it has not replaced WebP yet. The picture element lets you serve JXL to browsers that support it and WebP to the rest.
When to use which
Use WebP for anything that must work now with zero fallback complexity. Use JPEG XL when your analytics show supported browsers and you want the smallest files, especially if you can recompress existing JPGs losslessly. For archival, JXL preserves quality best.
A practical rule
Ship WebP today for broad compatibility and keep an eye on JXL as support grows. If you run a JPG heavy archive, test JXL lossless recompression for storage savings without quality loss. Convert between the two on this site to compare.
Format comparison
| Format | Compression | Transparency | Browser support | Best for |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JXL.jxl | Lossy (discards some detail) | Yes | n/a | Next-generation web images with the best compression (Chrome, Edge, Opera) |
| WebP.webp | Lossy (discards some detail) | Yes | All modern browsers (2011+) | Web images that need both quality and small file size |
Frequently asked questions
Is JPEG XL better than WebP?
JXL compresses 10 to 20 percent smaller at equal quality and supports lossless recompression of JPGs, but WebP runs everywhere today.
Should I use JXL or WebP on my website?
Serve WebP for maximum compatibility now, and add JXL with a WebP fallback once your analytics show a meaningful share of JXL capable visitors.
Can JPEG XL shrink existing JPGs without quality loss?
Yes, that is its standout feature. JXL can recompress a JPG losslessly, producing a smaller file with the exact same pixels.
Why is JPEG XL not in every browser?
JPEG XL support is still rolling out and some browsers have declined it. WebP already covers the market, so adoption has been slow.
What is the best format for archiving photos?
JPEG XL or a lossless format like PNG keeps quality best. For existing JPG archives, JXL lossless recompression saves space with no quality loss.