# AVIF vs WebP: Which Image Format Should You Use for Web Performance?

> A practical comparison of AVIF vs WebP for web performance. Covers compression efficiency, browser support, encoding speed, quality tradeoffs, and when to use each format in 2025.

- **Published:** 2025-07-19
- **Author:** Clixo
- **Reading time:** 6 min read
- **Tags:** image-optimization, avif, webp, web-performance, lcp
- **Canonical URL:** https://clixo.sh/blog/avif-vs-webp-image-format-comparison

You know JPEG and PNG are not the right answer for new web content. You have heard WebP is better. You have also heard AVIF is even better. Now you need to make a practical decision: which format to use, when to use each, and whether the browser support picture for AVIF is good enough to justify the added complexity. This comparison gives you a clear answer without hand-waving.

## What AVIF and WebP Are

Both are modern image formats designed to replace JPEG and PNG on the web.

**WebP** was developed by Google and released in 2010. It uses a compression algorithm based on the VP8 video codec and supports both lossy and lossless compression, transparency, and animation. It achieved broad browser support by around 2020 and is now supported across all major browsers.

**AVIF** is based on the AV1 video codec, developed by the Alliance for Open Media. It was formally released as an image format in 2019 and has been gaining browser support since 2020. It supports lossy and lossless compression, HDR, wide color gamut, transparency, and animation.

## AVIF vs WebP: Compression Efficiency

This is where AVIF wins clearly. For photographic images at equivalent visual quality:

- WebP is roughly 25–35% smaller than JPEG
- AVIF is roughly 40–55% smaller than JPEG

For a 200KB JPEG hero image, WebP saves you around 60KB. AVIF saves you around 100KB. At scale — across thousands of page loads — that difference is significant for both LCP time and bandwidth costs.

AVIF's advantage is most pronounced at lower quality settings. At high quality (90+), the difference between AVIF and WebP narrows. At medium quality (60–75), which is where most web images live, AVIF shows measurably better results — smaller file size at the same perceived quality, or better quality at the same file size.

For images with hard edges, solid colors, or text overlays (UI screenshots, product images with transparent backgrounds), the difference is smaller. Both formats handle these well, though lossless AVIF can be more efficient than lossless WebP for certain synthetic images.

## Browser Support

**WebP**: Supported in all modern browsers. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge — full support. You can serve WebP to essentially any visitor using a modern browser.

**AVIF**: Supported in Chrome (85+), Firefox (93+), and Safari (16.1+). As of 2025, global AVIF support is above 90% across browser users. Safari on iOS added support in iOS 16.

Both formats require a fallback for edge cases. The standard pattern is an HTML `picture` element with AVIF as the first source, WebP as the second, and JPEG as the final fallback:

```html
picture
  source type="image/avif" srcset="/img/hero.avif"
  source type="image/webp" srcset="/img/hero.webp"
  img src="/img/hero.jpg" alt="Hero image"
/picture
```

The browser uses the first format it supports. Most visitors get AVIF. Older browsers fall to WebP or JPEG.

## Encoding Speed and Build Pipeline Complexity

This is where WebP has a practical advantage. AVIF encoding is computationally expensive compared to JPEG or WebP encoding. Encoding a high-resolution AVIF at high quality can take seconds per image on a standard server, compared to milliseconds for WebP.

For a CMS with user-uploaded images that need on-the-fly processing, the encoding latency matters. You have two options:

1. **Build-time encoding**: encode AVIF during your build or image processing pipeline, not at request time. Suitable for a fixed set of images known at build time.
2. **CDN-based transformation**: use an image CDN (Cloudflare Images, Imgix, Cloudinary, Fastly Image Optimizer) that handles format conversion at the edge. These services cache the encoded result, so encoding only happens once per variant.

For most production web applications, an image CDN is the right answer. You upload the original high-quality source file and the CDN serves the optimal format for each browser automatically. You do not manage AVIF encoding in your build pipeline at all.

## Which Format to Choose: A Decision Guide

```mermaid
flowchart TD
  A["Choose Image Format"] --> B{"Using an image CDN?"}
  B -->|Yes| C["Serve AVIF first"]
  B -->|No| D{"Encoding at request time?"}
  D -->|Yes| E["Use WebP"]
  D -->|No| F{"Modern browser targets?"}
  F -->|Yes| C
  F -->|No| E
  C --> G["picture: AVIF then WebP then JPEG"]
  E --> H["picture: WebP then JPEG"]
```

**Use AVIF as your primary format when:**

- You are using an image CDN that handles encoding and caching automatically
- You are building a static site where images are encoded at build time
- Page weight is a priority — high-traffic pages where LCP performance and bandwidth costs matter
- Your target audience is on modern browsers (most B2C and B2B web apps in 2025)

**Use WebP as your primary format when:**

- You need to encode images quickly at request time without a dedicated image CDN
- You have an older user base or browser support requirements that include iOS 15 and below
- Simplicity in your build pipeline matters more than maximum compression

**Use JPEG as a fallback, not a primary format:**

JPEG remains the right fallback for AVIF and WebP in a `picture` element, because it is universally supported and performs adequately. But it should not be your first choice for new content.

**Use PNG only for:**

- Images requiring transparency with detailed edges (product cutouts, logos)
- Screenshots or UI images where lossless quality matters

Even then, consider lossless WebP or lossless AVIF as a PNG replacement.

## Practical Implementation

If you are using Next.js, the `next/image` component serves WebP by default (AVIF can be enabled in `next.config.js`). Enable AVIF output in the image formats configuration:

```javascript
module.exports = {
  images: {
    formats: ['image/avif', 'image/webp'],
  },
};
```

Next.js will serve AVIF to browsers that support it and fall back to WebP for others.

For non-Next.js applications or static sites, `sharp` is the standard Node.js image processing library. It supports both AVIF and WebP output with quality and effort controls.

For image CDNs, Cloudflare Images and Cloudinary both auto-serve AVIF to supporting browsers with no configuration beyond choosing the "auto format" or "f_auto" option.

## The Bottom Line

**AVIF is better on compression.** If your infrastructure handles encoding, use AVIF first with a WebP fallback.

**WebP is easier to work with.** Universal browser support, faster encoding, simpler pipeline. A reasonable default if you are not yet using an image CDN.

**The real win is moving away from JPEG and PNG.** Either modern format cuts image weight by 25–50% compared to JPEG, which is a direct improvement in LCP and a bandwidth cost reduction. The AVIF vs WebP decision is secondary to making that switch at all.

If your product is shipping unoptimised images or still serving JPEG as the primary format, [Clixo can help you build the right image delivery pipeline](https://clixo.sh/#contact) — whether that is a CDN integration, a Next.js migration, or a custom encoding workflow.

---

Clixo · 1141 W Bryn Mawr Ave, Itasca, IL 60143, US · [hello@clixo.sh](mailto:hello@clixo.sh)
[Start a build](https://clixo.sh/#contact) · [All services](https://clixo.sh/services) · [Agent guide (llms.txt)](https://clixo.sh/llms.txt)