Convert JPG to WebP
The single easiest win for page speed: same picture, roughly a third fewer bytes.
- Runs in your browser
- Nothing is uploaded
- No sign-up
- Batch up to 20 images
Drag & drop your image here
or tap to browse · you can also paste from the clipboard
JPG · PNG · WebP · GIF · BMP · AVIF · SVG · up to 50 MB each · up to 20 files
Choose imagesBefore
After
Processed image will appear here.
How to use the jpg to webp
To convert JPG to WebP, upload your photo, set quality to 80-85 and download. The WebP is typically 25-35% smaller than the source JPEG at the same visual quality. It is the easiest single improvement you can make to page load time.
- Add JPG photosBatch up to 20 files at once.
- Choose quality80 for general web use; 85-90 for hero images.
- Download WebPSave them individually or as a ZIP.
About this tool
WebP's lossy mode uses more advanced prediction than JPEG, so it reaches the same perceived quality with meaningfully fewer bytes. For a photo-heavy page, converting every JPEG to WebP often removes a megabyte or more from the total payload.
Because the source is already lossy, keep the quality reasonably high (80-85) so you are not stacking a second round of compression artefacts on top of the first.
What you get
- 25-35% smaller than the source JPEG in typical use
- Batch conversion with ZIP download
- Live before/after size comparison
- Optional resize for even larger savings
- Everything processed on your device
When to use the jpg to webp
Site-wide image optimisation
Batch-convert your entire images folder. On a photo-heavy site this often removes several megabytes from the total page weight.
Improving Core Web Vitals
Largest Contentful Paint is usually determined by the hero image. Making it a third smaller directly improves the score.
Reducing CDN and bandwidth costs
A third less data on every image request is a real saving at scale.
Fitting a stricter upload limit
When a platform caps uploads by file size rather than dimensions, WebP buys you meaningfully more image within the same budget.
Matching WebP quality to your source JPEG
| Source JPEG quality | Use WebP quality | Expected saving |
|---|---|---|
| Original camera JPEG (95+) | 85 | 35-50% |
| High quality (85-95) | 82 | 25-35% |
| Web quality (75-85) | 78-80 | 20-30% |
| Already heavily compressed (<70) | 75 | 10-20% |
| Unknown | 80 | 25-35% |
How it works
WebP reaches a smaller file at the same perceived quality because it predicts each block from neighbouring already-decoded blocks and encodes only the difference, where JPEG transforms every block independently. It also supports finer control over chroma and better handling of smooth gradients, which is where JPEG's blocking artefacts are most obvious.
Because your source is already lossy, this is a second generation of compression. The JPEG has discarded detail, and re-encoding cannot bring it back, but it can waste bytes faithfully preserving JPEG's artefacts. Keeping quality around 80-85 avoids that: high enough not to add visible damage, low enough not to spend bytes encoding noise.
The one thing to be careful about is your archive. Convert copies for delivery and keep the original JPEGs as masters. Converting back to JPEG later would be a third lossy generation.
Common problems and how to fix them
- The saving was smaller than 25%
- Your source was already heavily compressed, so there was less redundancy left to exploit. Lower the WebP quality slightly, or accept the smaller gain.
- The WebP came out larger than the JPEG
- You chose a quality higher than the source was saved at, so the encoder is faithfully preserving JPEG artefacts. Drop to 78-80.
- My CMS will not accept .webp uploads
- Older WordPress installations need a small MIME-type filter, and some hosts block unknown types. WordPress has supported WebP natively since version 5.8.
- The image looks softer than the original
- Quality is set too low for the content. Move to 85 and compare in the before/after panels.
Frequently asked questions
Will converting JPG to WebP lose quality?
Slightly. It is a second lossy encode. At quality 80-85 the difference from the source JPEG is very hard to see, while the file is around a third smaller.
Do I need a fallback for old browsers?
Rarely now. If you must support Internet Explorer or Safari 13 and earlier, use a <picture> element with a WebP <source> and a JPEG <img> fallback. Browsers pick the first format they understand.
Does WebP help SEO?
Yes, indirectly. Smaller images improve Largest Contentful Paint, which is a Core Web Vitals metric and a ranking signal. The format itself is not a ranking factor; the speed it produces is.
Can I convert back to JPG later?
Yes, with the WebP to JPG tool, but that is a third lossy encode. Keep your original JPEGs as masters.
How much smaller will my files be?
Typically 25-35% for photographs. Images that were already aggressively compressed gain less; high-quality camera JPEGs gain the most, often 35-50%.
Does Google index WebP images?
Yes. Google Images fully supports WebP, and faster-loading pages tend to perform better in search overall.