The quick answer
AVIF usually compresses a little better than WebP, especially for photos, so AVIF files tend to be smaller at the same quality. WebP has been around longer and is accepted by a few more older tools. For most websites, AVIF with a WebP or JPG fallback is the modern best practice.
Compression and quality
AVIF is built on AV1 and is very good at preserving detail at low bitrates, with fewer blocky artifacts than older formats. WebP (based on the VP8 codec for lossy mode) is also efficient and a big step up from JPG, but generally a notch behind AVIF on size-for-quality.
Transparency and features
Both support transparency (an alpha channel). AVIF additionally handles HDR and wide colour gamut better, which matters for high-end photography and displays.
Browser and tool support
All current major browsers support both formats. WebP’s longer history means slightly broader support in older apps and content tools. If a platform rejects AVIF, WebP is usually the next best option before falling back to JPG.
Which should you pick?
| Goal | Best pick |
|---|---|
| Smallest files, modern audience | AVIF |
| Broad support with good savings | WebP |
| Maximum compatibility | JPG / PNG |
FAQ
Is AVIF better than WebP?
Usually slightly smaller at the same quality, especially for photos. WebP has marginally wider legacy support.
Should I switch from WebP to AVIF?
If your audience uses modern browsers and you want the smallest files, yes — often with a WebP/JPG fallback.