// Image Formats · 2026

AVIF VS WebP

AVIF compresses harder than WebP, and that is not the whole story. We compare quality per byte, encoding cost, colour depth and the practical support gaps.

Updated: August 2026 · 8 min read

↓ Skip to Verdict

At a Glance

Category	AVIF	WebP
Based on	AV1 video codec	VP8 video codec
Compression	Highest of the two	Very good
Colour depth	Up to 12-bit, HDR and wide gamut	8-bit only
Transparency	Yes	Yes
Encoding speed	Slow	Fast
Browser support	Chrome, Firefox, Safari 16.4+, Edge	All modern browsers, longer track record
In-browser encoding	Safari only	Widely supported

AVIF wins on bytes, and it costs you elsewhere

AVIF generally produces a smaller file than WebP at comparable visual quality, sometimes substantially so, and it degrades more gracefully at very low bitrates. If page weight is your binding constraint, AVIF is the stronger format. The cost is encoding time - AVIF is markedly slower to encode than WebP, which matters if you are processing images at volume or on demand.

Colour depth is the underrated difference

WebP is 8 bits per channel, full stop. AVIF supports up to 12-bit, along with HDR and wide colour gamut. For most web imagery this is irrelevant. For photography portfolios, gradients that would otherwise band, and anything destined for a modern display, it is the more meaningful advantage than the file-size difference.

The support gap is smaller than it was, but it is not zero

Every current major browser decodes AVIF, including Safari since 16.4. That makes it safe to serve on the web with a fallback. Outside the browser the picture is patchier: plenty of desktop applications, image editors and operating-system previews still do not open AVIF, where WebP has had years longer to be adopted.

🔴 The trap: browsers cannot create AVIF

This one costs people real time. Chrome and Firefox can display AVIF but cannot encode it - only Safari can, via canvas. Worse, the HTML specification says a browser asked for an unsupported image type should silently substitute PNG rather than fail. So a naive in-browser "convert to AVIF" tool hands you PNG bytes in a file named .avif, usually larger than what you started with, with no error anywhere. Our converters check the returned type against what was requested and fall back to WebP with a visible explanation rather than lying about it.

Which to actually use

If you control a build pipeline and can encode ahead of time, serve AVIF with a WebP fallback via <picture> and take the smaller files. If you are converting images by hand, on demand, or in a browser, WebP is the pragmatic choice: near-universal support, fast encoding, and no risk of the silent-substitution trap above.

Our Verdict

AVIF is the better format and WebP is often the better decision. Choose AVIF when you have a build step that can absorb the encoding time and page weight genuinely matters, and serve WebP as the fallback. Choose WebP when conversion happens on demand or in a browser. Neither is a mistake; only converting to AVIF in a browser that cannot encode it is.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is AVIF better than WebP?

On compression and colour, yes - AVIF usually produces smaller files at comparable quality and supports up to 12-bit colour, HDR and wide gamut, where WebP is 8-bit only. WebP encodes much faster and has broader support outside the browser, so it is often the more practical choice.

Do all browsers support AVIF?

All current major browsers decode AVIF, including Safari since version 16.4. Support outside the browser is patchier - many desktop applications and image editors still do not open AVIF, where WebP has had longer to be adopted.

Can I convert images to AVIF in my browser?

Generally no. Chrome and Firefox can display AVIF but cannot encode it - only Safari can. Because the HTML specification tells browsers to silently substitute PNG for an unsupported type, a naive converter will hand you PNG bytes in a file named .avif. Our tools detect this and fall back to WebP with an explanation.

Is AVIF slower than WebP?

To encode, yes, noticeably - which matters if you are processing many images or converting on demand. Decoding is fast enough in both formats that visitors will not notice a difference.

Should I switch my whole site to AVIF?

Only if you have a build pipeline that can absorb the encoding time. The usual pattern is to serve AVIF with a WebP fallback in a picture element, so browsers that prefer AVIF get the smaller file and everything else still works.

Try it yourself

All of these run entirely in your browser — no signup, no watermark, and your files never leave your device.

WebP to AVIF AVIF to JPG Optimize for Web All Free Tools →

Related Comparisons

WebP vs PNG JPG vs PNG HEIC vs JPG All Comparisons →