A third off your bandwidth bill
JPG has been the web's photo format for thirty years; WebP does the same job in roughly two-thirds of the bytes. If you run a blog, a shop or a portfolio, converting your JPG library to WebP is one of the cheapest performance wins available: faster Largest Contentful Paint, lower bandwidth costs, better Core Web Vitals with zero visual change. Every modern browser and CDN accepts the result.
Convert from the best source you have
Lossy-to-lossy conversion compounds, so feed this tool the highest-quality JPG available, ideally the camera original rather than a copy that has been through a chat app's compression. If your photos started life on an iPhone, convert directly from the HEIC with HEIC to WebP and skip the intermediate JPG generation entirely; one fewer lossy hop means visibly cleaner results at the same file size.
Common questions
How much smaller will my JPGs get?+−
Google's published benchmarks show WebP averaging 25 to 34% smaller than JPG at equivalent quality, and our own tests with camera photos land in the same range. A 3 MB JPG typically becomes a 1.9 to 2.2 MB WebP at matching visual quality.
Does converting JPG to WebP lose quality?+−
It adds one mild re-compression pass. At 85 to 90% quality the difference is invisible for photographs. What you should avoid is repeatedly converting back and forth between lossy formats; convert once, from the best source you have.
When should I NOT convert to WebP?+−
When the destination is not the web. Files sent to print shops, embedded in Office documents for old systems, or uploaded to strict forms are safer as JPG. WebP's advantage is web delivery; JPG's advantage is universal acceptance.
What quality setting should I pick?+−
85% is the web-publishing sweet spot: clean gradients, no visible artifacts, near-maximum savings. Go to 90 to 95% for portfolio or photography sites where inspection at full size is expected.