Convert JPG to WEBP — Free, Private, In Your Browser
The same photo in fewer bytes, for pages that need to load quickly. The honest number from our own test: at this tool's high quality setting, existing JPGs shrank by 14% to 37%.
- 100% Private
- No Upload
- Free Forever
Drop your JPG here or click to upload
Only JPG files accepted on this page.
Converting to WEBP…
This is happening on your device — no upload.
How this JPG to WEBP conversion works
The page decodes the JPG and writes a WEBP at quality 0.92 with the same pixel dimensions. The camera information block is not copied across. If you need an even smaller file, resizing the photo to the width your site actually displays usually saves more than lowering quality.
Example: JPG to WEBP in practice
A blog post with eight photos straight from a phone, each several megabytes. Converting alone will help, but resizing to the width your theme actually displays helps far more, so resize first and then convert. Upload the WEBPs, keep the JPGs, and open the post on a phone over mobile data to see the difference for yourself.
Before you use the new WEBP from your JPG
- Compare the photo with the JPG at 100% zoom, especially in skies and skin tones.
- Upload both versions to a test page and check the real saving in your browser's network panel.
- Keep the JPG for anyone who will email, print or upload the photo.
Why convert JPG to WEBP?
JPG has been the default photo format since the 1990s, and WEBP's newer compression reaches similar visual quality in fewer bytes. On a page with a dozen photos that difference adds up, particularly on mobile data. There is a subtlety, though. Converting an existing JPG means compressing an already compressed picture a second time, and at a high quality setting part of the bytes go into faithfully preserving the old JPG artefacts. That is why the saving from JPG is smaller than when WEBP is made from the original camera file or a PNG master. WEBP is for the web; anything emailed, printed or uploaded to a form should stay JPG.
When JPG to WEBP is the right call
- Photos and banner images on a website or blog
- Product galleries in an online store, where photos dominate page weight
- Reducing bandwidth on a site that serves many photographs
- Removing camera and GPS data from photos before publishing them
JPG vs WEBP: what changes
| Feature | JPG | WEBP | In practice |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compression | Lossy | Lossy here | A second lossy pass over an already compressed photo. Subtle at 0.92, but do not repeat it. |
| Transparency | No | Yes (alpha) | The format could hold transparency, but a JPG has none to give, so the WEBP stays opaque. |
| Colour depth | 8-bit | 8-bit | No change in colour precision: both formats store 8 bits per channel. |
| Camera metadata | EXIF kept | Not copied | Camera model, capture date and GPS location are not copied into the WEBP, which suits publishing. |
| Browsers | Universal | All current | Every up-to-date browser shows WEBP; see caniuse.com/webp for the detail. |
| Email & upload forms | Universal | Often refused | Portals, mail clients and print shops may not accept WEBP, so keep the JPG for them. |
| Social apps | Native | Varies | Instagram, WhatsApp and similar apps re-encode uploads anyway, so converting first gains nothing there. |
Browser support: caniuse.com/webp
JPG to WEBP file size: our test
Our test images (results vary by image): a 640×720 photo and a 560×720 text graphic cropped from one of our blog headers, plus our 1696×399 site logo with its transparent background. Sources were JPGs at quality 85, decoded and written as WEBP at quality 92 to match this tool. For the logo row our transparent logo was first flattened onto white and saved as a JPG.
| Test image | JPG in | WEBP out | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Photo, 640×720 | 37.7 KB | 32.2 KB | 14% smaller |
| Text graphic, 560×720 | 38.3 KB | 29.6 KB | 23% smaller |
| Logo, 1696×399 | 59.2 KB | 37.6 KB | 37% smaller |
Real but modest savings at quality 0.92. For comparison, when we encoded the same photo straight from its original pixels at WEBP quality 0.80, it weighed 16.7 KB, less than half the JPG. So if you still have the camera original or a PNG master, convert from that for the best result; converting the JPG is the fallback when it is all you have.
When not to convert JPG to WEBP
- Photos you will email, print or upload to a job, exam or government portal. Those want JPG.
- When your website platform or CDN already creates WEBP versions automatically. Converting by hand first just adds an extra round of compression.
- When the original camera file or a PNG master exists. Convert from that instead of from a JPG copy.
- As a repeated step. Converting JPG to WEBP to JPG and back again stacks compression every time.
JPG to WEBP FAQ
How much smaller will the file actually be?
In our test, 14% smaller for a photo, 23% for a text graphic and 37% for a logo, all at the tool's 0.92 quality. Results vary by image: smooth images save more, detailed or noisy ones less.
Should I convert photos I need to email or print?
No. Keep those as JPG. WEBP is worth it for images served on a web page; for email, print or an upload form, JPG's universal acceptance is worth more than the saved bytes.
Is it better to convert from the original instead of the JPG?
Yes, if you have it. Making WEBP from the original camera file or a PNG avoids compressing the photo twice. In our test the WEBP made from original pixels was less than half the size of the JPG.