AVIF vs WebP Comparison: Which Format is Better?

In the ever-evolving landscape of web image formats, two modern contenders have emerged as frontrunners for delivering high-quality images with efficient compression: AVIF and WebP. Both formats offer significant advantages over traditional formats like JPEG and PNG, but they have different strengths and limitations.

In this comprehensive comparison, we'll explore how AVIF and WebP stack up against each other in terms of compression efficiency, image quality, browser support, and practical applications to help you decide which format is best for your specific needs.

Quick Overview: AVIF vs WebP

Feature	AVIF	WebP
Release Year	2019	2010
Developed By	Alliance for Open Media	Google
Based On	AV1 Video Codec	VP8/VP9 Video Codec
Compression Efficiency	Excellent (30-50% smaller than JPEG)	Very Good (25-35% smaller than JPEG)
Browser Support	Good (Chrome, Firefox, Edge, Safari)	Excellent (All major browsers)
Color Depth	8-bit, 10-bit, 12-bit	8-bit
HDR Support	Yes	No
Transparency	Yes	Yes
Animation	Yes	Yes
Encoding Speed	Slower	Faster

Origins and Development

WebP: The Pioneer

WebP was developed by Google and first released in 2010 as part of their effort to make the web faster. It was based on technology from the VP8 video codec, which Google acquired when they purchased On2 Technologies. Later versions of WebP incorporated improvements from the VP9 codec.

As one of the first modern image formats designed specifically for the web, WebP has had a significant head start in terms of adoption and browser support. It was created with the primary goal of reducing file sizes while maintaining visual quality comparable to JPEG.

AVIF: The Newcomer

AVIF is a more recent format, first released in 2019. It was developed by the Alliance for Open Media (AOM), a consortium that includes major tech companies like Google, Mozilla, Microsoft, Amazon, and Netflix. AVIF is based on the AV1 video codec, which was designed as a royalty-free alternative to HEVC (H.265).

AVIF was created with the benefit of nearly a decade of advancements in image compression technology since WebP's introduction. It was designed to push the boundaries of compression efficiency while supporting modern features like HDR and wide color gamut.

Compression Efficiency and Image Quality

File Size Comparison

One of the most important factors when comparing image formats is how efficiently they can compress images while maintaining acceptable quality. Multiple studies and benchmarks have consistently shown that:

AVIF typically produces files that are 20-40% smaller than equivalent WebP files at similar quality levels
Compared to JPEG, AVIF files are usually 30-50% smaller, while WebP files are 25-35% smaller
The compression advantage of AVIF over WebP is more pronounced for photographic content with complex details
For simpler graphics with large areas of solid color, the difference between AVIF and WebP is less significant

Example: A 1920×1080 photograph might be 200KB as a JPEG, 140KB as a WebP, and just 100KB as an AVIF file at visually similar quality levels.

Visual Quality

Beyond pure file size, the visual quality of compressed images is crucial:

AVIF generally preserves more details in complex areas of images compared to WebP at similar file sizes
AVIF handles gradients more smoothly, with less banding than WebP
AVIF maintains better color accuracy, especially in challenging areas like shadows and highlights
WebP can sometimes produce more noticeable artifacts around sharp edges and text
At very low bitrates (extreme compression), AVIF tends to degrade more gracefully than WebP

Color Depth and HDR

A significant advantage of AVIF over WebP is its support for higher color depths and HDR:

AVIF supports 8-bit, 10-bit, and 12-bit color depths, allowing for a much wider range of colors
WebP is limited to 8-bit color depth
AVIF supports HDR (High Dynamic Range) imaging, enabling more vibrant and lifelike images with greater contrast between light and dark areas
WebP does not support HDR

These capabilities make AVIF particularly well-suited for high-quality photography, especially content that benefits from HDR or wide color gamut display.

Browser and Platform Support

Current Support (2025)

Browser support is a critical factor when choosing an image format for the web:

Browser	WebP Support	AVIF Support
Chrome	Since v32 (2014)	Since v85 (2020)
Firefox	Since v65 (2019)	Since v93 (2021)
Edge	Since v18 (2018)	Since v85 (2020)
Safari	Since v14 (2020)	Since v16 (2022)
iOS Safari	Since iOS 14 (2020)	Since iOS 16 (2022)
Android Chrome	Since v32 (2014)	Since v85 (2020)

As of 2025, both formats have achieved good browser support, but WebP still has an advantage in terms of legacy browser compatibility. For more detailed information about browser support, check our Browser Support for AVIF in 2025 article.

Software and Tool Support

Beyond browsers, support in various software and tools is important for workflow integration:

Image Editors: WebP has broader support in image editing software, though AVIF support has improved significantly by 2025
Content Management Systems: Most modern CMS platforms now support both formats, but WebP integration is often more mature
Image Processing Libraries: Libraries like Sharp, ImageMagick, and Pillow support both formats, though WebP processing is typically faster
CDNs and Image Optimization Services: Most now support both formats, with some automatically serving the optimal format based on browser capabilities

Performance Considerations

Encoding Speed

When implementing image optimization in your workflow, encoding speed can be an important factor:

WebP encoding is significantly faster than AVIF encoding
AVIF encoding can be 2-5 times slower than WebP, depending on quality settings and implementation
This difference is most noticeable in real-time or high-volume processing scenarios
For pre-processed content (like website assets), the encoding time difference is less relevant

Decoding Speed

Decoding speed affects how quickly images can be displayed in browsers:

WebP generally decodes faster than AVIF, especially on older or less powerful devices
AVIF decoding is more computationally intensive, which can impact performance on mobile devices
The difference in decoding time is becoming less significant as hardware improves and browser implementations are optimized
For most web use cases, the decoding time difference is not noticeable to users on modern devices

Progressive Loading

Progressive loading allows images to be displayed gradually as they download:

WebP supports a limited form of progressive loading
AVIF currently lacks native progressive loading capabilities
This can affect perceived performance on slower connections, where progressive JPEGs might still have an advantage

Practical Applications: When to Use Each Format

When to Choose AVIF

AVIF is generally the better choice when:

Maximum compression efficiency is the top priority
You're displaying high-quality photographic content
Your content benefits from HDR or wide color gamut
You have a modern audience using up-to-date browsers
You're implementing a multi-format strategy with appropriate fallbacks
Encoding time is not a critical constraint

When to Choose WebP

WebP might be the better choice when:

Broader browser compatibility is needed, especially for older browsers
Encoding speed is important (e.g., real-time processing)
You need simpler workflow integration with existing tools
You're working with simpler graphics where AVIF's compression advantage is less significant
You're targeting lower-powered devices where decoding performance might be a concern

Best Practice: Use Both with Fallbacks

The optimal approach for most websites is to implement a responsive image strategy using the HTML <picture> element with multiple formats:

<picture>
  <source type="image/avif" srcset="image.avif">
  <source type="image/webp" srcset="image.webp">
  <img src="image.jpg" alt="Description" width="800" height="600">
</picture>

This approach:

Serves AVIF to browsers that support it, providing the best compression
Falls back to WebP for browsers that support WebP but not AVIF
Provides a final JPEG fallback for maximum compatibility
Ensures all users get the best possible experience their browser can support

Pro Tip: When implementing a multi-format strategy, generate the AVIF version first at your target quality level, then create the WebP and JPEG versions to match that visual quality rather than using the same compression settings across formats.

Case Studies: Real-World Performance

E-commerce Website

A large e-commerce platform with thousands of product images implemented a responsive image strategy with AVIF, WebP, and JPEG:

Average page weight reduced by 42% compared to JPEG-only
AVIF provided an additional 18% reduction compared to WebP-only
Page load times improved by 35%
Mobile conversion rates increased by 7.5%

News Website

A news website with high traffic and many photographic images:

Total bandwidth usage reduced by 48% after implementing AVIF with WebP fallback
Largest Contentful Paint (LCP) improved by 28%
CDN costs reduced by 32%

Photography Portfolio

A professional photographer's portfolio website:

AVIF provided superior quality for high-dynamic-range photographs
Gallery page load times reduced by 45%
Maintained professional image quality while reducing average file size by 62%

Future Outlook

As we look to the future of image formats:

AVIF adoption continues to grow as browser support expands and tooling improves
WebP remains relevant due to its broader compatibility and faster processing
Encoding and decoding optimizations are making AVIF more performant
New formats like JPEG XL are emerging but have not yet achieved widespread adoption

The gap between AVIF and WebP is likely to narrow in some areas as both formats continue to evolve, but AVIF's fundamental technical advantages in compression efficiency and image quality will likely persist.

Conclusion

Both AVIF and WebP represent significant improvements over older formats like JPEG and PNG, offering better compression and more features. The choice between them depends on your specific priorities and constraints:

If you prioritize maximum compression efficiency and image quality, especially for photographic content, AVIF is generally the better choice.
If you need broader compatibility, faster encoding, or simpler workflow integration, WebP might be more appropriate.
For most websites, implementing both formats with appropriate fallbacks provides the best balance of performance and compatibility.

As browser support for AVIF continues to improve and the performance gap narrows, AVIF is increasingly becoming the preferred format for forward-thinking web developers who want to provide the best possible image experience.

Want to convert between these formats? Try our AVIF2Anything converter to easily convert your images to and from AVIF, WebP, and other formats.

AVIF vs WebP: Which Format is Better?