Use WebP as the default for images on a website, AVIF for large hero and product images where the extra compression is worth a fallback, JPG for email, print and anywhere universal compatibility matters, and PNG only for logos, screenshots and graphics that need transparency or lossless sharpness.
That one sentence covers most decisions, and the numbers below explain why it holds up.
Put the four formats in a comparison table and the pattern is immediate: JPG keeps a small file size for photos, PNG carries a large file size for graphics, WebP lands smaller than JPG and smaller than PNG, and AVIF ends up the smallest of all, with ninety-six percent support for WebP and ninety-three percent support for AVIF in the quick comparison.
Against a baseline one hundred percent for a JPEG photo, WebP sits at sixty-five to seventy-five percent WebP, AVIF at forty to sixty percent AVIF, and JPEG XL at thirty-five to fifty-five percent JPEG XL.
The same ratios show up from the other direction. A JPEG is twenty-five to fifty percent larger JPEG than WebP and fifty to seventy percent larger JPEG than AVIF at equivalent quality, while WebP is twenty-five to thirty-five percent smaller WebP than JPG, twenty-six percent smaller PNG in lossless mode, and twenty-five to thirty-four percent smaller JPEG in lossy mode.
For graphics with flat colour areas, WebP runs twenty-five to eighty percent smaller graphics than PNG.
AVIF is twenty to thirty percent smaller AVIF than WebP, fifty percent plus smaller JPG, a twenty percent extra reduction over WebP in one account, thirty to fifty percent smaller AVIF than JPG in another, forty to sixty percent smaller AVIF than JPEG, and twenty to thirty-five percent smaller WebP in a third set of measurements.
I have seen the same hero at quality fifty AVIF look comparable to quality seventy-five JPEG at roughly half file size: a two hundred to five hundred kilobytes JPEG hero becomes sixty to one hundred fifty kilobytes AVIF with no visible difference.
Animation follows the same logic, with animated WebP sixty-four percent smaller GIF than the equivalent GIF, and JPEG XL claiming fifty-five percent smaller JPEG XL than JPEG and twenty-five percent smaller AVIF than AVIF.
One photograph makes it concrete.
The benchmark photo measured four point eight megabytes PNG lossless, six hundred eighty kilobytes JPG at eighty-five percent quality JPG, four hundred eighty kilobytes WebP at the same perceived quality, and three hundred twenty kilobytes AVIF as the smallest file — a ninety-three percent reduction from PNG to AVIF, and for fifteen product photos the difference between a seventy-two megabytes page and a five megabytes page.
The test shot was six thousand by four thousand pixels, twenty-four megapixels, ISO two hundred, taken on a Sony A7 IV, with bright sky and mid-tone foliage in the frame. That is the scale of the decision: not a rounding error, but the difference between a page that loads and a page that drags.
How Does Each Image Format Actually Work?
JPG works by throwing away what your eyes notice least, and it has done so since its 1992 origin, when it became the cameras default, the phones default and the internet default.
A small photo files promise is its whole job, and JPG keeps a decent appearance while it does it: an iPhone raw photo of twelve megabytes becomes two to four megabytes as a JPG, because lossy compression discards discarded data the eye barely registers.
JPG is built for smooth gradients and complex colours, and for those the barely noticeable quality loss is real — you have to hunt for it. Under the hood it uses a Discrete Cosine Transform over eight-by-eight blocks, dropping high-frequency components first, and it stores only an eight-bit channel per colour, with EXIF metadata and little else.
That simplicity is why it still enjoys thirty years device support: every camera, phone and browser from the last three decades reads it, and it suits natural images sent through email clients, CMS exports and image editors alike.
Modern encoders help further: a MozJPEG encoder beats the libjpeg defaults most exporters still ship with, producing visibly smaller files from the same photo.
PNG takes the opposite bargain. A lossless PNG survives a thousand saves with identical quality, because DEFLATE compression works on a pixel-by-pixel representation and keeps an alpha channel for transparency, up to a sixteen-bit channel in PNG-48, producing a byte-perfect source after decompression.
PNG is clever about solid colours and repetitive patterns — a mostly-white screenshot compresses small — and hopeless about photographic complexity, where the same image balloons. For sharp edges and text, though, nothing in the JPG family competes.
I still keep masters as PNG when I plan to edit again, because re-saving a JPG is a one-way street and PNG never charges for the round trip.
WebP arrived as Google’s answer to both. Built on the VP8 video codec from Google development, it packs lossy and lossless modes into one container, launched in 2010 launch and waiting until 2020 Safari support before the web took it seriously.
After fifteen years updates it is a royalty-free format and an open-source format, and Google’s experimental WebP2 successor shows the line is still being developed.
AVIF goes further down the video-codec road: it uses the AV1 video codec, the same technology behind YouTube 4K video and Netflix video, developed by the Alliance for Open Media under the Linux Foundation as a WebP successor.
Its 2019 specification reached Chrome 2020, Firefox 2021 and Safari 2022, and it wins through variable block sizes, more transform types and better intra-frame prediction, plus HDR support and a twelve-bits channel.
The price is encode time — libaom encoders run ten to one hundred times slower than WebP — and CPU-intensive decoding that can show on old phones, though on modern hardware it is rarely felt.
Two formats sit outside the main four and still shape decisions. HEIC iPhone photos use the HEIF name for the same format, built by the Moving Picture Experts Group behind the MPEG formats, with ten-bit Apple colours inside a sixteen-bits channel, and the ability to store multiple images single file — a high-resolution version and a low-resolution version together.
Its HEVC codec patents and royalty fees are why it never became a web format. JPEG XL, from the Joint Photographic Experts Group as a JPEG successor, reaches a thirty-two-bits channel with Wide Gamut and progressive rendering, stays backward-compatible JPEG, and can even do a lossless transcode about twenty percent smaller than the original JPEG.
Its Chrome flag dropped and Firefox flag status, against Safari 2023 support, explain why it remains a future format rather than a present one.
How Much Smaller Are WebP and AVIF Than JPG?
WebP is smaller than JPG by a margin you can measure on any single photo, and AVIF is smaller again — but the honest answer depends on which benchmark you trust, because the sources disagree in the details while agreeing on the direction.
The benchmark I trust most shot one landscape with dark shadow detail under trees, judged at one hundred percent zoom on a calibrated monitor for visually transparent quality, meaning a careful viewer could not tell the compressed file from the master.
The results were eight point four megabytes JPG at quality ninety JPG, fifty-two point one megabytes PNG, five point seven megabytes WebP at quality ninety WebP, and three point nine megabytes AVIF at quality sixty AVIF.
Encode times told their own story: zero point three seconds encode for JPG, one point one seconds encode for PNG, zero point six seconds encode for WebP, and three point eight seconds encode for AVIF, with fast decode for the first three and medium decode for AVIF.
That works out to a thirty-two percent saving WebP off JPG and a fifty-four percent saving AVIF off JPG, while PNG is six times larger PNG than JPG and simply the wrong tool for a photograph at any scale.
The page-level effect is where it stops being academic. Images are fifty to seventy percent page weight on most sites, and Largest Contentful Paint — one of the three Core Web Vitals that feed search ranking — is almost always an image, typically the hero.
The gap between a three hundred twenty kilobytes JPEG hero and a one hundred ten kilobytes AVIF hero on a real mobile connection is the gap between a page that feels fast and one that does not.
Scale it up: forty-eight megabytes visitor for a JPG site becomes thirty-two megabytes visitor in WebP and twenty-two megabytes visitor in AVIF, when a site averages eight images per page at six hundred kilobytes JPG each.
Across one hundred thousand visitors that is four point eight terabytes egress versus three point two terabytes egress versus two point two terabytes egress, and one retailer reported an eleven days payback on the implementation work from CDN savings alone.
Smaller stories rhyme: thirty-eight hero images weighing forty-seven megabytes site dropped to thirty-one megabytes site in WebP and twenty-two megabytes site in AVIF, with a sixty-four Lighthouse score climbing to a ninety-one Lighthouse score in one afternoon; one thousand two hundred recipe photos cut index load from six seconds load to two point two seconds load; even a blog with five thousand visitors sees the benefit on mobile data plans.
| Format | Typical file size (photo) | Transparency | Browser support | Best for |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JPG | 100% (baseline) | No | Universal | Photos, email, print |
| PNG | 5–10x JPG | Yes | Universal | Logos, screenshots, graphics |
| WebP | 65–75% of JPG | Yes | 96–97% | Web images (default) |
| AVIF | 40–60% of JPG | Yes | 93–96% | Hero and product images |
Which Browsers and Tools Support Each Format?
Every browser supports JPG and PNG, and the real question is where the modern formats stand — because a format that fails in a visitor’s browser is not a saving, it is a broken image.
The story usually starts with a logo upload that passes a website check on desktop and fails on a phone screen, where a white box background reveals a transparent background mistake; or a product photo saved as PNG that pushes homepage load to six seconds.
The format choice matters before anything else, and the fast answer still holds: photos JPG, logos PNG, website WebP for the default, website AVIF for the next generation.
In a default 2026 setup, universal browser support for WebP is effectively settled, while AVIF trades a little encode speed for a bigger file-size win, at the cost of a picture fallback for older browsers.
That tradeoff is sharpest for hero images and large product shots, where slow encode is a one-time cost and the saving repeats on every view, and weakest for email compatibility and printable assets, where compatibility beats bytes. JPEG XL remains Safari-only in practice, which is why the sources keep it in the future column.
| Browser | WebP | AVIF | JPEG XL |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chrome | 32 (2014) | 85 (2020) | Dropped 2023 |
| Edge | 18 (2018) | 121 (2024) | Not shipped |
| Firefox | 65 (2019) | 93 (2021) | Behind flag |
| Safari | 14 (2020) | 16 (2022) | 17 (2023) |
| Samsung Internet | 4 (2016) | 14 (2021) | Not shipped |
That table is a benchmark exercise in miniature: not opinion, but real photograph-era file-size numbers and browser-support data turned into recommendations. JPG and PNG are the common formats everyone knows, WebP carries the Google recommendation for the web, and the modern formats beyond it each have their true believers.
The JPG dead hot takes have run for fifteen years without arriving, and JPG still powers seventy percent web images — which is precisely why it stays the fallback even as better formats take the front seat.
When Do Transparency, Animation or Colour Depth Decide the Format?
Transparency, animation and colour depth decide the format whenever the image has to do more than sit flat on a white page — and the deciding factor is usually not file size at all.
Chrome support, Firefox support, Safari support and Edge support for WebP and AVIF are now broad enough that support alone rarely blocks a web decision, while Internet Explorer eleven is the exception that proves the rule: Microsoft support ended 2022, usage is below zero point five percent usage, and designing around it in 2026 is designing around a ghost.
The January 2026 table makes the version history concrete — Chrome thirty-two for WebP and Chrome eighty-five for AVIF, Edge eighteen and Edge one hundred twenty-one, Firefox sixty-five and Firefox ninety-three, Safari fourteen, Safari sixteen and Safari seventeen, Samsung Internet four and Samsung Internet fourteen.
With five years browser history behind WebP, ninety-six percent global traffic for AVIF, and support still climbing support from ninety-seven percent browsers for WebP and ninety-four percent early 2025 for AVIF, the remaining gaps are older Edge installs, embedded WebViews and corporate locked-down browsers — exactly the audience a fallback is for.
Tools tell a messier story than browsers. Canva support and Figma export for WebP are fine, Windows Photos handling is inconsistent across versions, and older Photoshop versions, print workflows and specialized tools still trip over WebP, with Adobe products before 2022 needing a plugin requirement to open it at all.
Email client support splits three ways: universal email support for JPG, strong WebP email in modern clients but far from universal, limited AVIF email and none JPEG XL email. AVIF in desktop viewers may even need an AV1 codec install.
And marketplace re-encode behaviour plus admin uploaders inconsistent support mean the format you upload is often not the format your buyer sees — a reason to ship JPG to marketplaces and keep modern formats for sites you control.
Should You Save Lossy or Lossless?
Lossy or lossless is not a quality ranking, it is a question of what the file is for — and getting it wrong in either direction costs you.
Transparency sharpness is the first test: screenshots, UI mockups, see-through backgrounds, icons and crisp text all need edges that survive compression, and on a coloured background a PNG gives a clean blend where a JPG leaves a white rectangle.
Animated images are the second test: an animated GIF replacement in WebP or AVIF beats the old format on both GIF colour support and GIF file sizes, and for longer motion a MP4 video is better still. GIF survives mainly as reaction content on social platforms; for static images it is the last choice static images deserve, not the first.
Colour depth is the third test: an eight-bit JPG, an eight or sixteen-bit PNG, an eight-bit WebP and an eight ten twelve-bit AVIF are not interchangeable when the image is HDR wide gamut material for professional photography or other high-quality assets.
At quality ninety-five plus, WebP shows marginal WebP quality differences against JPG, but at that bracket the enormous file sizes make the comparison academic for the web. HEIC’s sixteen-bits HEIC and ten-bit Apple colours, and JPEG XL’s thirty-two-bits JPEG XL as the most robust format, matter for archives and print, not for a hero image.
Two habits save more trouble than any format switch. sRGB embedding first: untagged files suffer unpredictable rendering across browsers, so colour profile tagging should be part of every export.
progressive JPG second: render passes give better perceived performance than a baseline JPG, because something appears while the rest downloads. And for detail work, remember AVIF’s edge in fine detail and gradients handling — it is the format that holds up best when a photo has both at once, which is most real photos.
Which Format Should You Use for Photos, Logos and Email?
The format for a photo, a logo and an email attachment should be chosen by destination, not by habit — and the lossy/lossless decision sits underneath all three. lossy only JPG and lossless only PNG are the two poles; both modes WebP and both modes AVIF span them.
At quality ninety artifacts are invisible artifacts to the human eye, and the real savings are large, which is why lossy wins for photography. Lossless belongs with source masters kept for non-destructive edits, and with graphics where every pixel matters.
The lossless WebP underappreciated case deserves a second look: twenty to thirty percent smaller lossless WebP than PNG with byte-perfect fidelity makes it a quiet win at zero quality cost for icon libraries, brand-asset collections and infographic archives — the same pixels, a smaller bill, every time they are served.
- Website images: WebP by default, AVIF for large heroes and product shots, JPG as fallback.
- Email and print: JPG, because compatibility beats compression there.
- Logos, icons and screenshots: PNG for editing and transparency, WebP lossless for the live site.
JPG degradation is the reason masters matter: a re-edit resave cycle, a crop save twice habit, and you get blocky artifacts and edge artifacts that no later export can remove. Keep PNG originals and TIFF originals, keep a PSD master where you have one, and do the final delivery export only at the end.
RAW shooting and saving originals before compression are the same discipline at capture time. The nuance the sources disagree on is worth knowing: a lower quality re-encode or different settings re-encode does degrade a JPG, but lossless cropping tools and an essentially neutral resave at the same quality do not.
AVIF adds its own caution: chroma subsampling sensitivity and colour-space handling mean AVIF final step only — generate it last, from the master, never from another AVIF.
How Do You Convert Images and Serve Them With Fallbacks?
Converting and serving with fallbacks is a workflow, not a single export, and it starts with the website destination in mind. WebP start for anything web-facing, AVIF performance gain where the image is large enough to justify it, never a raw JPG upload to a site you care about. A print document or email destination flips the answer: universal small works everywhere beats clever compression. A logo icon screenshot with an editing transparency need stays PNG while you work on it, then becomes WebP straight onto website when it ships. An iPhone HEIC file that hits a Windows open problem gets a convert HEIC first step before anything else. And if you are unsure JPG remains the safe answer — it has always worked, and that reliability is a feature, not a failure. For a new project baseline 2026, WebP is the default; where a fallback strategy worth it exists, AVIF joins it, and that combination is a significant upgrade WebP over JPG alone, even accepting the picture element ceremony it requires. The payoff concentrates in large important images where product shots priority and encoding cost worth it align, and where an SVG first choice is not available — SVG wins for flat illustrations outright, with WebP lossless alternative or PNG graphics alternative behind it. GIF never 2026 for a website animation; a video element animation replaces it.
A high-end print archive at quality ninety-five to one hundred or a TIFF archive is a different job from the web, as is an animated illustration where a huge APNG is the worst option. Whatever you ship, start from the master highest quality you have: converting to PNG for transparency still needs you to mask background yourself, and progressive enhancement means the browser first format it understands wins, with a legacy fallback behind it. Measure it — Lighthouse before after should show a thirty to fifty percent page weight drop and a Largest Contentful Paint improvement — then keep the pipeline honest for inbound files too: conversion direction matters when a partner WebP file arrives, when legacy systems AVIF files need JPG, when a wrongly saved PNG photograph needs slimming, and when iPhone source files arrive as HEIC. Finally, in-format compression with a JPG compressor, PNG compressor or universal image compressor squeezes the last bytes out of the format you already chose.
- Decide the destination first: email printable decision or web, and check the two hundred kilobytes threshold for AVIF.
- Serve AVIF first with a WebP fallback and JPEG behind fallback for long tail browsers.
- For small images where thirty kilobytes vs fifty kilobytes is a marginal AVIF win, skip the picture complexity and ship WebP alone.
- Identify the content type: content type identification between continuous tone photos with gradients no hard edges, graphic sharp edges, and images needing a non-uniform background.
- Match the delivery context — stock agency, marketplace delivery, printed delivery, or a site you control — and choose universal compatibility photograph formats accordingly.
Which Format Mistakes Waste the Most Bandwidth?
The mistakes that waste the most bandwidth are boring, repeatable, and entirely avoidable — which is why they keep happening. zero learning curve is JPG’s great virtue: every camera produces it, every browser renders it, every printer accepts it, every social platform expects it, and it will be readable 2050 with confidence.
That universality is also its trap, because shipping JPG everywhere in 2026 leaves a third to a half of your image weight on the table.
colour compression ringing around hard edges is the visible symptom of using JPG for graphics, and six to ten times larger PNG for photographs is the invisible one — a PNG photo carries no perceptible benefit over a JPG or WebP at the same visual quality, only a larger bill.
one third bandwidth saving from WebP is the default serving prize for everyday web use, where extensive browser support is already there and HDR not requirement for most images. AVIF is the top choice visuals format when quality matters most, but it carries an encoding decoding performance cost that must be budgeted, not ignored.
Apple default format HEIC is superb on the phone and less suitable direct web, and future-proofing images with JPEG XL only makes sense with maximum quality efficiency in mind and an audience browser check first, since adoption growing is not the same as adoption arrived.
Is WebP Actually Better Than JPG for Websites?
WebP is actually better than JPG for websites, and the reason is not fashion but arithmetic plus one feature JPG cannot offer.
The production sites approach is to serve AVIF supported browsers first and fallback WebP JPG behind it, using the HTML picture element with a source srcset AVIF, a source srcset WebP, and an img src JPG — in the example, width sixteen hundred by height nine hundred — so the first supported format wins and older browsers fall through to JPG.
With multiple resolutions per format and srcset sizes following the responsive-image pattern, each visitor gets the smallest file visitor-side in the most efficient format their browser supports. That matters more than any single export setting, because the same page serves a modern phone and a locked-down office browser at once.
The privacy angle is worth a sentence too: online converters server upload means your files sit on a stranger computer for a while, which is fine for memes fine content and questionable for sensitive files, client work or product photos sensitive material.
browser-only conversion on a WebAssembly device means files never touch server — you can convert two hundred images or disconnect WiFi mid-conversion and it still works. Common routes like PNG to WebP website optimization and WebP to JPG Photoshop fix exist precisely because the web and the desktop still speak different formats.
And GIF? For static images never GIF: it has worse colour larger files than every modern format, while animated WebP outperform and short MP4 outperform it for motion; its cultural persistence GIF as reaction content social explains its survival, but on your own website last choice is where it belongs.
Finally, the patent question: WebP royalty-free, and AVIF same royalty-free — no licence fee stands between you and either format.
Should You Use AVIF or WebP in 2026?
You should use WebP as the default in 2026 and AVIF for the images big enough to justify it, because the two formats solve different parts of the same problem.
HEIC to JPG Windows conversions, JPG PNG to PNG transparency work, and any format any format batches all belong to the same toolkit: a Bulk Image Converter followed by a Bulk Image Compressor pipeline with no re-upload steps, or encoders like MozJPEG libwebp OxiPNG encoders — the desktop CLI encoders running in the browser with no upload rate limit server.
Services like Cloudinary automatic conversion pick the optimal format browser-side, including HEIC to JPEG automatic handling, so you stop thinking about it per image. For AVIF specifically, tune the encoder: libavif speed four, with faster encoding higher numbers trading quality for speed, and avifenc jobs flag enabling parallel encoding multi-core.
A thirty seconds hero re-encode pays every page load, and one batch run plus a picture pattern update can produce a Lighthouse climb in an afternoon.
Layering AVIF on top is the next fifteen percent gain via a JPG to AVIF converter, while inbound conversions normalize everything else to your archival format; a universal converter handles mixed-format batches and in-format size tuning finishes the job, turning what used to take a quarter to afternoon into a single session.
And the direct question: for websites, websites consistently yes — WebP gives smaller files same visual quality plus transparency JPG lacks, and the only tooling compatibility reason to stay on JPG is that some CMS plugins expect JPG PNG. For any new project 2026 baseline, WebP is the floor, AVIF the ceiling.
Does Converting JPG to PNG Improve Quality?
Converting JPG to PNG does not improve quality, and believing otherwise is one of the most expensive misunderstandings in image work. The PNG photographs mistake is the classic version: twelve PNG photos weighing eighty megabytes page and loading in eighteen seconds mobile, when photographs ship JPG WebP AVIF and PNG belongs graphics.
The mechanism is simple repeated re-encoding degradation: every edit resave cycle through a lossy format throws data away, which is why a lossless master exists and why the final delivery step only should produce the JPG.
serving JPG everyone 2026 leaves fifty percent higher page weight on the table, yet the three percent JPG browsers left behind are nobody slowed by a fallback — they simply get the JPG while everyone else gets the smaller file.
AVIF has its own version of the same lesson: poorly tuned AVIF settings produce larger worse AVIF outputs, so use a well-tuned encoder with libavif defaults or a hosted service tuned parameters, because a bad AVIF worse good JPG encode is a real outcome, not a hypothetical.
Do not assume AVIF replace JPG soon on a universal support assumption: JPG is the next decade fallback, so plan for the picture-tag pattern indefinitely. The email version is equally blunt: email broken attachments happen when an email client unknown format meets a modern file, so emails ship JPG and WebP AVIF live web.
The logo version is the logo white box on a coloured background and the six-second homepage from PNG photos, both fixed by choosing the right format first.
And the resave nuance: lower quality re-encode degrade and different settings degrade do hurt, but lossless cropping tools and a same quality essentially neutral resave do not — which is why masters, not exports, are where quality lives.
The blocky artifacts edges you see on a repeatedly saved JPG, the static GIF website choice, and GIF as a last choice GIF all point the same way: convert for delivery, never for rescue.
Can You Use PNG for Photos on Your Website?
You can use PNG for photos on your website, but you almost certainly should not, because the cost is large and the benefit is imaginary for photographs. PNG clearly screenshots is the right rule for its true home: JPG blurs text edges and leaves artifacts UI elements with smudgy text, while high-contrast text-heavy content is exactly what PNG handles best.
The quality comparison is subtler than “PNG is better”: at quality ninety above JPG the difference appears only at extreme zoom synthetic test patterns, not photographs difference in normal viewing, and PNG’s real advantage is sharp edges graphics advantage on logos, charts and text.
The conversion question underneath is the same: a lossy to lossless conversion produces a larger file no quality recovery, because the discarded quality is gone; if maximum quality matters, RAW shoot or keep originals before lossy compression. PNG for a photo is therefore a file-size decision wearing a quality costume, and the costume does not fit.
Which Format Works Best for Email and Marketplaces?
JPG works best for email and marketplaces, and the reason is the same in both places: you do not control the other end.
technically yes practically no is the honest answer to PNG photos on the web: enormous PNG photos at five to ten times file size serve a rare lossless photograph need that almost no web photo has, and JPG WebP web photos are what users PageSpeed thanks you for.
Marketplaces add their own twist: JPG will not be replaced soon, not another decade, because sticky universal compatibility and a thirty-year head start have it embedded printers picture frames digital cameras old computers deep into every workflow. Ship JPG where someone else’s system decides the format, and save the modern formats for the pages you own.
What About HEIC, JPEG XL and AVIF Replacing JPG?
HEIC, JPEG XL and AVIF replacing JPG are three different questions with three different answers, and conflating them is how teams pick the wrong format. poor HEIC browser support means a HEIC to JPG converter web delivery step is still mandatory for iPhone photos on the web, whatever HEIC’s compression merits.
technically excellent JPEG XL is real, but it was removed Chromium and has very limited browser support 2026, so the practical choices WebP AVIF remain the web pair.
For the AVIF-or-WebP decision itself: if you can fallback strategy handle it, AVIF worth switch for the real meaningful savings, and the pragmatic approach is modern browsers picture element with a fallback WebP JPG behind it; if that is too much work fallback, WebP alone significant upgrade over JPG already.
Email closes the loop: JPG almost always email with the broadest email support, because multiple images file size matters in an inbox, PNG acceptable logos graphics aside, and you should avoid WebP AVIF email or the recipient may see a broken image recipient-side.
Marketplaces rhyme with email: not yet marketplaces, because they re-encode uploads own format and admin uploaders inconsistent support makes AVIF a gamble — ship JPG marketplaces, ship AVIF controlled sites. AVIF will not replace JPG for at least another decade; it will sit in front of it, with WebP between, for a long time yet.
Need help making your website faster? Try Digitaldott’s free image tools, or contact us for a free website audit.