ToolBox Image — WebP vs AVIF: Welches Next-Gen-Format spart mehr Speicherplatz?
Sowohl WebP als auch AVIF versprechen eine bessere Komprimierung als JPEG. Wir lassen sie auf echten Bildern gegeneinander antreten, um zu sehen, welches Format die kleinsten Dateien ohne Qualitätseinbußen liefert.
Two formats — WebP and AVIF — both promise significantly better compression than JPEG. But which one should you actually use?
File size comparison
At equivalent visual quality, AVIF consistently produces smaller files than WebP. Our tests on a 4000 × 2250 photograph showed:
| Format | File size | Savings vs JPEG |
|---|---|---|
| JPEG (quality 80) | 1.8 MB | — |
| WebP (quality 80) | 1.2 MB | 33% |
| AVIF (quality 80) | 720 KB | 60% |
AVIF is roughly 40% smaller than WebP on photographic content.
Browser support
WebP has wider support — roughly 97% of global browsers versus 92% for AVIF. Both are supported in Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge.
Encoding speed
WebP encodes 3-5 times faster than AVIF at the same quality setting. Our compressor handles this by processing images in parallel across all CPU cores.
Which should you choose?
Use WebP as your baseline and AVIF where you need maximum savings. WebP is faster to encode, has wider browser support, and still saves 25-35% compared to JPEG. AVIF is worth the extra encoding time for photographic content where every kilobyte matters.