WebP is smaller, supports transparency, and is now universally supported. But PNG still has its place. Here's the complete 2026 breakdown.
WebP was designed by Google specifically to replace both JPG and PNG on the web. It achieves smaller file sizes than PNG with the same lossless quality, supports transparency, and now works in all modern browsers. If you're building a website and want faster load times, WebP is the better choice. If you need images to open reliably in Photoshop, Illustrator, older apps, or send to someone whose software you don't control, stick with PNG.
| Feature | PNG | WebP |
|---|---|---|
| Compression | Lossless only | Lossless and lossy both available |
| File size vs PNG | — | ~26% smaller lossless, 60–80% smaller lossy |
| Transparency | Full alpha transparency | Full alpha transparency |
| Animation | APNG (limited support) | Animated WebP (better than GIF) |
| Browser support | Universal (all browsers) | All modern browsers (97%+ globally) |
| Software support | All image editors & apps | Most modern apps, not all legacy |
| Quality loss | None — lossless | None in lossless mode |
| Web performance | Good | Better — smaller files load faster |
| Encoding speed | Fast | Slightly slower |
| Best for | Universal compatibility, design workflows | Web images, performance-critical pages |
WebP uses more modern compression algorithms than PNG's DEFLATE-based approach. In lossless mode, WebP uses predictive coding — it predicts the value of each pixel based on surrounding pixels and only stores the difference, which is far more efficient than PNG's block-based approach. In lossy mode, WebP uses a variant of the VP8 video codec's intra-frame compression, which is more sophisticated than JPEG's DCT approach.
For a typical logo or icon at equivalent visual quality, WebP lossless saves around 26% compared to PNG. For photographic images in lossy WebP at quality 80, savings reach 60–80% compared to lossless PNG — while still looking better than a quality-85 JPG. This makes WebP genuinely superior to both older formats for web delivery.
PNG still holds advantages in specific situations. First, software compatibility: Photoshop, Illustrator, Figma, and virtually every image viewer and editor supports PNG natively. WebP support in desktop software has improved significantly but isn't universal — some older or specialized tools still can't open WebP files.
Second, PNG is better for archival use when maximum compatibility over a long time horizon matters. PNG has been a stable standard since 1996; the format is unlikely to become unreadable. WebP, while widely adopted, is newer and controlled by Google.
Third, if you're sending images to clients or collaborators who might open them in any software, PNG is the safer choice. For assets that will only ever appear on a website, WebP is the clear winner.
WebP is generally better than PNG for web use because it produces 25–35% smaller files at equivalent visual quality, supports both lossy and lossless compression, and includes full transparency support. However, PNG remains more universally compatible across all software, including image editors and older apps.
Yes. WebP supports full alpha transparency, exactly like PNG. You can use WebP for logos, icons, and UI elements that need transparent backgrounds with the same result as PNG but smaller file sizes.
As of 2026, all modern browsers — Chrome, Firefox, Safari (since 2020), Edge, and Opera — support WebP natively. Browser support is no longer a concern for web use. Older IE11 and very old Safari versions do not support WebP, but these make up less than 1% of traffic.
Use PNG when compatibility with design software (Photoshop, Illustrator), non-web apps, or older systems is required. PNG is also preferred when you need guaranteed lossless storage and re-editing compatibility across all tools. WebP lossless is supported in most browsers but not all image editors.
WebP lossless is typically 26% smaller than equivalent PNG files. WebP lossy is dramatically smaller — often 60–80% smaller than a lossless PNG of the same image, while maintaining comparable visual quality to a quality-85 JPG.