Home Articles Tools About Support Subscribe

JPG VS PNG

The oldest question in image formats, and it has a genuinely simple answer. We compare compression, transparency and text handling - and give you the one-line rule.

Updated: August 2026 · 7 min read

↓ Skip to Verdict

At a Glance

Category JPG PNG
Compression Lossy Lossless
Transparency No Yes (8-bit alpha)
Photographs Excellent - small files Poor - very large files
Text and sharp edges Poor - visible artefacts Excellent - pixel exact
Re-saving Degrades every time No loss ever
Typical use Photos, camera output Screenshots, logos, UI, diagrams
Support Universal Universal

The one-line rule

Photograph? JPG. Anything with text, sharp edges or transparency? PNG. That single sentence resolves the overwhelming majority of real cases, and the rest of this page is just the reasoning behind it.

Why JPEG ruins text and PNG does not

JPEG compresses by discarding detail the eye is bad at noticing, working in 8x8 pixel blocks. That works beautifully on a photograph, where colour changes gradually. It works badly on a hard black-on-white edge, because a sharp transition is exactly the kind of high-frequency detail the algorithm throws away - producing the grey smudging around letters known as ringing. PNG stores pixels exactly, so an edge stays an edge.

Generational loss is the trap

Every time a JPEG is opened and re-saved it is re-compressed, and the damage accumulates permanently. A file edited five times is visibly worse than the original, and there is no way back. PNG has no such problem. If a file will be edited more than once, keep the working copy as PNG and export to JPEG only at the end.

Transparency only exists in one of them

JPEG has no alpha channel at all. A logo saved as JPEG gets a solid background - usually white, sometimes black - and there is no setting that changes this. If you need the background to disappear, the answer is PNG or WebP. This is the single most common reason a logo looks wrong on a coloured page.

File size in practice

For a photograph, JPEG is dramatically smaller - often five to ten times - and the quality difference is invisible at sensible settings. For a screenshot or a flat-colour graphic the relationship inverts: PNG compresses runs of identical pixels extremely well, so it is often smaller than JPEG as well as sharper. Converting a screenshot to JPEG to "save space" frequently makes the file bigger and uglier at the same time.

Our Verdict

Photographs go to JPG. Screenshots, logos, icons, diagrams and anything containing text go to PNG. Keep master copies as PNG while you are still editing, and export to JPG only when you publish. If you want JPG-like size with PNG-like sharpness and transparency, the modern answer to both is WebP.

Frequently Asked Questions

Use JPG for photographs and PNG for anything containing text, sharp edges or transparency - screenshots, logos, icons and diagrams. That rule resolves almost every real case.
JPEG compression discards fine high-frequency detail, and a hard edge between text and background is exactly that. The result is grey smudging around letters, called ringing. PNG stores pixels exactly, so text stays sharp.
Yes. Every save re-compresses the image and the damage is permanent and cumulative. PNG has no generational loss, so keep your working copy as PNG and export to JPG once at the end.
No. JPEG has no alpha channel, so transparency is replaced with a solid colour, usually white. If you need a transparent background, use PNG or WebP.
It depends entirely on the content. For photographs JPG is far smaller, often five to ten times. For screenshots and flat-colour graphics PNG is frequently smaller as well as sharper, because it compresses runs of identical pixels very efficiently.

Try it yourself

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

JPG to PNG PNG to JPG Image Compressor All Free Tools →

Related Comparisons

WebP vs PNG AVIF vs WebP SVG vs PNG All Comparisons →