AVIF vs WebP: Which Next-Gen Format Should You Use?
Last month I was rebuilding a photography portfolio site and hit the exact moment every web developer hits eventually: the format dropdown. AVIF or WebP? Both are “next-gen.” Both promise smaller files than JPEG. Both work in every major browser now. So which one actually wins?
I spent a week running benchmarks, testing edge cases, and digging into encoding pipelines. Here’s what I found — and more importantly, here’s what you should actually pick.
The Short Answer (For People in a Hurry)
Use AVIF as your primary format and WebP as your fallback. AVIF delivers 20-30% smaller files than WebP at the same visual quality, and browser support in 2026 covers roughly 95% of global traffic. Serve both with the
<picture>element, and you get the best of both worlds with zero downside.
If that’s all you needed, go convert your images and call it a day. But if you want to understand why, and when WebP might actually be the better choice, keep reading.
Compression: The Numbers Don’t Lie
Let’s talk file sizes. I ran a set of 20 test images — a mix of photographs, product shots, illustrations, and UI screenshots — through both encoders at matched visual quality (SSIM-calibrated, not just matching quality slider values). Here’s what typical results look like.
Photographic Images
For a standard 1920x1080 photograph at visually equivalent quality:
| Quality Tier | AVIF | WebP | AVIF Savings vs WebP |
|---|---|---|---|
| High (comparable to JPEG 90) | ~95 KB | ~135 KB | 30% smaller |
| Medium (comparable to JPEG 75) | ~45 KB | ~62 KB | 27% smaller |
| Aggressive (comparable to JPEG 50) | ~22 KB | ~34 KB | 35% smaller |
That medium tier is the sweet spot for most web images, and AVIF’s advantage there is substantial. We’re talking about a photo that’s basically indistinguishable from the WebP version but nearly a third lighter on the wire.
Graphics, Screenshots, and UI Elements
Here’s where it gets interesting. AVIF’s advantage shrinks — and sometimes disappears — for non-photographic content:
| Image Type | AVIF (Lossy) | WebP (Lossy) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Screenshot with text (1200x800) | ~38 KB | ~42 KB | AVIF ~10% smaller |
| Simple logo/icon (400x400) | ~6 KB | ~5 KB | WebP ~17% smaller |
| Illustration with flat colors | ~18 KB | ~16 KB | WebP ~11% smaller |
| Product photo on white bg (800x800) | ~32 KB | ~48 KB | AVIF ~33% smaller |
AVIF’s compression magic comes from its ability to handle complex textures and gradients. Hand it a photograph with skin tones, foliage, or a sunset, and it’ll crush WebP. But for simple graphics with sharp edges and flat color areas, WebP’s compression is already excellent, and AVIF’s overhead sometimes makes it slightly larger.
The takeaway? AVIF is the clear winner for photographs. For simple graphics, it’s a wash or WebP edges ahead slightly.
Browser Support: Both Are Safe in 2026
Remember when WebP felt risky because Safari didn’t support it? Those days are long gone. And AVIF has followed a similar trajectory. Here’s where we stand:
| Browser | WebP Support | AVIF Support |
|---|---|---|
| Chrome | Since 2014 (v32) | Since 2020 (v85) |
| Firefox | Since 2019 (v65) | Since 2021 (v93) |
| Safari | Since 2020 (v14) | Since 2022 (v16) |
| Edge | Since 2018 (v18) | Since 2020 (v85) |
| Samsung Internet | Since 2016 (v4) | Since 2021 (v16) |
| Opera | Since 2013 (v19) | Since 2020 (v71) |
Global support as of early 2026: WebP sits at roughly 97%, AVIF at roughly 95%. That 2% gap is almost entirely old Safari versions (pre-16) and a handful of niche browsers. For most websites, both formats are safe to serve without fallbacks.
That said, if you’re in e-commerce or any context where every single visitor matters — including that person on an ancient iPad running Safari 15 — WebP’s slightly broader reach is worth noting. It’s not a dealbreaker, but it’s real.
The Encoding Speed Problem
Here’s where AVIF has a genuine weakness, and it’s one that doesn’t show up in compression benchmarks but absolutely shows up in your workflow.
AVIF is slow to encode. Not “a little slower” — dramatically slower. On a typical 4-core machine encoding a batch of 100 product photos:
| Operation | WebP | AVIF | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Encode 1 photo (1920x1080) | ~120ms | ~1,200ms | AVIF is 10x slower |
| Batch encode 100 photos | ~12 sec | ~2 min | Real-world bottleneck |
| Decode (browser rendering) | ~5ms | ~8ms | Negligible difference |
For a static site where you build images once and serve them forever, that encoding time is irrelevant. Who cares if the build takes two extra minutes? But if you’re running a platform where users upload images and expect near-instant results, or you’re doing on-the-fly image transformations at the CDN edge, that 10x encoding penalty is a real architectural constraint.
WebP’s encoding speed is one of the reasons CDN-based image optimization services were able to adopt it so quickly. AVIF adoption at that layer has been slower precisely because of the compute cost.
Decoding (what happens in the user’s browser) is a different story. Both formats decode fast enough that you won’t notice a difference on any modern device. AVIF is slightly heavier on the CPU during decode, but we’re talking single-digit milliseconds — totally invisible to users.
What AVIF Does That WebP Can’t
AVIF isn’t just “WebP but smaller.” It has genuine technical capabilities that WebP lacks entirely.
HDR and Wide Color Gamut
AVIF supports 10-bit and 12-bit color depth, HDR metadata, and wide color gamuts like Display P3 and Rec. 2020. If you’re working with HDR photography or need to display images on modern Apple displays that support P3, AVIF can represent colors that WebP literally cannot encode.
WebP is locked to 8-bit, standard dynamic range, sRGB. That’s fine for most web content today. But as HDR displays become standard on phones and laptops, AVIF’s color capabilities will matter more and more.
Better Gradient Handling
AVIF’s compression algorithm handles smooth gradients (sky, skin, studio backdrops) significantly better than WebP. Where WebP sometimes produces visible banding in blue skies or soft portrait lighting, AVIF keeps those transitions smooth even at aggressive compression levels. If you’ve ever noticed ugly color steps in a compressed sunset photo, that’s exactly the kind of artifact AVIF was designed to eliminate.
Film Grain Synthesis
This one’s niche but fascinating: AVIF can store film grain parameters separately from the image data, then reconstruct the grain on decode. The result is dramatically smaller files for grainy photos (think: concert photography, low-light shots, intentionally textured images) without losing that organic texture. WebP has no equivalent.
For a deeper dive into AVIF’s technical capabilities, check out our AVIF image compression guide and the HEIF vs AVIF comparison.
Where WebP Still Wins
It’d be easy to declare AVIF the champion and move on. But WebP has real advantages that keep it relevant.
Encoding Speed, Again
I already covered this, but it’s worth emphasizing: if your pipeline needs fast encoding, WebP is the pragmatic choice. Content management systems, user-generated content platforms, and real-time image APIs all benefit from WebP’s speed.
Animation
WebP supports animation as a direct GIF replacement, and animated WebP files are dramatically smaller than GIFs. AVIF technically supports animation too (via AVIF sequences), but tooling and browser support for animated AVIF is still inconsistent. If you need animated images, WebP is the safer bet today.
Ecosystem Maturity
WebP has been around since 2010. Every major image processing library (sharp, ImageMagick, Pillow, libvips) handles it effortlessly. CDN services, CMS platforms, and build tools all have first-class WebP support. AVIF support in these tools is catching up fast but still has occasional rough edges — a library that doesn’t support AVIF’s full feature set, or an encoder that produces slightly different results depending on the version.
Lossless Compression for Graphics
For lossless compression of screenshots, diagrams, and UI elements, WebP lossless is surprisingly competitive with — and sometimes beats — AVIF lossless. AVIF’s strength is in lossy photographic compression. When you’re doing lossless encoding of non-photographic content, the gap narrows or disappears.
The Decision Matrix: What Should You Actually Use?
I promised I’d be opinionated, so here it is. No “it depends on your needs” hedging.
If you’re building a new website or redesigning an existing one, serve AVIF as your primary format with a WebP fallback. The <picture> element makes this trivial, and you get AVIF’s superior compression for the vast majority of visitors while still covering the few who can’t handle it.
If you’re running a platform where users upload images and speed matters, use WebP as your primary output format. The encoding speed difference is real, and WebP’s compression is still excellent. Add AVIF when your infrastructure can handle the compute cost.
If you’re working with HDR content or high-end photography, AVIF is the only choice. WebP simply can’t represent the color information you need.
If you need animated images, WebP today, check back on AVIF animation support next year.
If you’re optimizing an existing site and can only pick one format, pick WebP. It’s easier to implement, faster to encode, has slightly broader support, and the file size difference versus AVIF, while real, isn’t dramatic enough to outweigh the convenience factor for most teams.
Here’s the quick reference:
| Use Case | Recommended Format | Why |
|---|---|---|
| General website photos | AVIF (WebP fallback) | Best compression, broad support |
| E-commerce product images | AVIF (WebP fallback) | Smaller files, better gradients |
| User-uploaded content (fast processing) | WebP | 10x faster encoding |
| Animated images | WebP | More reliable animation support |
| HDR / wide gamut photography | AVIF | WebP doesn’t support HDR |
| Logos, icons, simple graphics | WebP lossless or PNG | AVIF offers no advantage here |
| Maximum browser coverage | WebP | 97% vs 95% global support |
How to Serve Both: The Picture Element
The cleanest implementation uses HTML’s <picture> element to serve AVIF to browsers that support it and WebP to everyone else:
<picture>
<source srcset="photo.avif" type="image/avif">
<source srcset="photo.webp" type="image/webp">
<img src="photo.jpg" alt="Description" width="800" height="600">
</picture>
The browser picks the first format it supports from top to bottom. AVIF-capable browsers get the smallest file. Older browsers that only support WebP get the WebP. And anything that doesn’t support either falls back to JPEG. No JavaScript, no content negotiation, no CDN configuration. It just works.
You can generate both formats in one step with BulkImagePro’s conversion tools. Convert your JPEGs to WebP and AVIF (via the format converter), then drop both versions into your project.
For a complete walkthrough of format conversion workflows, see our image format conversion guide.
What About JPEG XL?
You might be wondering about JPEG XL, the other contender in the next-gen format race. Chrome dropped JPEG XL support in 2023, which effectively killed its viability as a web format. Firefox never shipped it. Safari supports it, but one browser isn’t enough. For web delivery, the race is between AVIF and WebP, and that’s unlikely to change.
For a broader comparison of all next-gen options, see our next-gen image formats comparison.
FAQ
Is AVIF always smaller than WebP?
For photographs, yes -- AVIF is consistently 20-35% smaller than WebP at equivalent visual quality. But for simple graphics, icons, and images with flat colors, WebP can match or beat AVIF. The more complex and photographic the image, the bigger AVIF's advantage.
Can I use AVIF without a WebP fallback in 2026?
For most websites, yes. AVIF browser support covers roughly 95% of global traffic in early 2026. However, the remaining 5% includes some older iOS devices running Safari pre-16, which can be a meaningful audience segment for certain sites. Adding a WebP or JPEG fallback via the picture element is trivial and eliminates any risk.
Why is AVIF so slow to encode?
AVIF is based on the AV1 video codec, which was designed for maximum compression efficiency rather than encoding speed. Its compression algorithm analyzes images in more complex ways than WebP's VP8-based encoder -- testing more prediction modes, larger block sizes, and more reference configurations. This produces smaller files but requires significantly more computation. Encoding speed has improved with each generation of encoder libraries (libaom, libavif), but the fundamental algorithmic complexity means AVIF will likely always be slower than WebP to encode.
Does AVIF support transparency like WebP?
Yes. Both AVIF and WebP support alpha transparency. AVIF actually handles transparency more efficiently in many cases, producing smaller files than WebP for images with complex semi-transparent regions. Both formats are valid PNG replacements when you need transparency with better compression.
Should I convert my existing WebP images to AVIF?
Ideally, convert from your highest-quality source files (original JPEGs, TIFFs, or PNGs) rather than from WebP. Converting from one lossy format to another introduces generational quality loss. If your only source is WebP, converting to AVIF will still reduce file sizes, but you won't get the full quality benefit. Always keep your original source files.
What quality setting should I use for AVIF?
AVIF quality scales vary by encoder, but a good starting point is quality 60-70 for most web images (this is roughly equivalent to JPEG 75-85 in visual quality). For hero images and high-end product photography, use 75-80. For thumbnails and content images where size matters most, 45-55 works well. Always check results visually since AVIF quality numbers don't map 1:1 to JPEG or WebP scales.
Ready to convert your images? BulkImagePro’s format converter handles batch conversion to WebP, AVIF, and every other major format — right in your browser, no upload required. Try the JPG to WebP converter to get started, or explore the full image compression guide for a complete optimization strategy.
For more format comparisons, check out WebP vs JPEG vs PNG and our best image compressors comparison.
Ready to optimize your images?
Try our free bulk image tools - compress, resize, crop, and convert images in seconds.