JPEG XL vs WebP vs AVIF (2025)
•10 min read•Format Comparison
The three modern image formats each shine in different scenarios. Here’s a concise, practical comparison and a rollout plan you can ship today without breaking compatibility or performance.
Quick Comparison
| Metric | JPEG XL (JXL) | WebP | AVIF |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compression at high quality | Excellent (lossless & lossy) | Good | Excellent (best for photos) |
| Speed (encode/decode) | Fast decode, moderate encode | Fast | Slower encode, okay decode |
| Transparency/Animation | Alpha; animation | Alpha; animation | Alpha; no animation |
| Browser/OS support (2025) | Improving; still inconsistent | Excellent (near‑universal) | Excellent on modern |
Practical Recommendation
For most websites in 2025: serve AVIF where supported, fallback to WebP, and keep JPG as a final fallback for legacy clients. Adopt JPEG XL experimentally for archives and high‑quality photo libraries if you can measure support in your audience.
Rollout Plan
- • Primary: AVIF; Fallback: WebP → JPG
- • Use
<picture>to negotiate formats - • Keep quality 70–85% for photos; lossless for UI
- • Monitor analytics for format coverage
Compatibility Notes
- • Email clients: prefer JPG/PNG
- • Old CMS: may lack AVIF upload support
- • Social apps often recompress; test exports
Need quick format swaps?
Convert between AVIF, WebP and JPG right in your browser.