AVIF vs JPG: Is AVIF the Future of Web Images?

Laura Cummins

Jan 26, 2026 5 min read

Updated Jan 26, 2026

JPG has been the default photograph format since 1992. Thirty-four years later, AVIF is the strongest candidate to replace it. Built on the AV1 video codec, AVIF cuts file sizes in half while adding features JPG never had: transparency, HDR, and animation. The question is whether the trade-offs, slower encoding and slightly less than universal browser support, matter for your site.

Breaking Down AVIF vs JPG

JPG uses Discrete Cosine Transform compression designed in the late 1980s. AVIF uses the AV1 codec released in 2019 by the Alliance for Open Media, a consortium that includes Google, Apple, Mozilla, and Netflix. Three decades of compression research separate the two formats, and the gap shows in every benchmark.

File Size: AVIF Cuts JPG in Half

In benchmark tests using 24-megapixel DSLR photographs downscaled for web delivery, a 500KB JPG compresses to approximately 250KB as AVIF at quality 80. That is a consistent 50% reduction across photographic content.

Push the compression harder and the gap widens. A 560KB photograph saved as JPG at quality 75 (289KB) drops to just 101KB as AVIF at quality 30, an 81% reduction. At that level, some fine detail softens, but the image remains visually acceptable for most web contexts.

AVIF also holds up better under compression. SSIM scores, which measure structural similarity to the original, run 2-4% higher for AVIF than JPG at identical file sizes. Gradients, skin tones, and subtle textures are where JPG's block artifacts become visible and AVIF's codec advantage is most obvious.

For a site serving 10GB of JPG images per month, switching to AVIF means transferring roughly 5GB instead. That is real money saved on CDN bandwidth and real milliseconds saved on every page load.

Encoding Speed: JPG Is 15x Faster

AVIF's file size advantage comes at a cost during encoding. Converting a single photograph to AVIF takes approximately 1,200ms. The same image encodes to JPG in about 80ms. That is a 15x difference.

For static websites that build images during deployment, this is a one-time cost. A portfolio site with 200 photos spends an extra 4 minutes on AVIF encoding during each build. Worth it for 50% smaller files served to every visitor afterward.

For real-time processing, where users upload images and expect instant results, the encoding gap matters more. An image upload service processing 1,000 photos per hour would need significantly more compute to produce AVIF output compared to JPG. In those scenarios, JPG (or WebP, which encodes 4x faster than AVIF) is the practical choice.

Decoding speed, what your visitors actually experience, is less of a concern. Browsers decode AVIF quickly enough that the smaller download size more than compensates for any decoding overhead on typical connections.

Browser Support: 95% vs 100%

JPG works everywhere. Every browser, every email client, every image viewer, every device manufactured in the last three decades renders JPG without issue. That is the baseline AVIF is measured against.

AVIF reached 95% global browser support by early 2026:

• Chrome 85+ (September 2020)
• Firefox 93+ (October 2021)
• Safari 16.4+ (March 2023, macOS Ventura and iOS 16.4)
• Edge 121+ (January 2024)

The missing 5% consists of older browser versions, some niche mobile browsers, and legacy systems. The HTML <picture> element handles this cleanly: serve AVIF to the 95% that support it and JPG to everyone else, with zero JavaScript required.

Features JPG Cannot Match

Beyond compression, AVIF supports capabilities JPG was never designed for:

• Transparency: AVIF includes an alpha channel. JPG does not support transparency at all, which is why PNG remains common for logos and overlays. AVIF handles both photography and transparency in a single format.
• HDR and wide color gamut: AVIF supports 12-bit color depth (4,096 shades per channel) compared to JPG's 8-bit (256 shades). This allows HDR content and P3/Rec. 2020 color spaces, relevant as HDR displays become standard on phones and laptops.
• Animation: AVIF supports animated sequences, making it a potential replacement for GIF in addition to JPG. JPG has no animation capability.

How to Switch from JPG to AVIF

1. Assess your image library. Open your browser's DevTools and run a network audit to identify the largest JPG files on your site. Prioritize images over 100 KB and assets on high-traffic pages.
2. Compress source images with LighterImage. Upload your JPG files to reduce file size before conversion. Starting from a well-compressed source produces smaller AVIF output.
3. Convert to AVIF format. Use a build tool like Sharp, Squoosh CLI, or your CDN's automatic format conversion. Set quality between 30 and 50 for web photography.
4. Serve AVIF with JPG fallback. Replace your <img> tags with the HTML <picture> element. Browsers that support AVIF load the smaller file; all others fall back to JPG automatically.

<picture>
  <source srcset="photo.avif" type="image/avif">
  <img src="photo.jpg" alt="Description" loading="lazy">
</picture>

For CMS platforms: WordPress 6.5 added native AVIF support in April 2024, so you can upload AVIF files directly to the Media Library. Shopify auto-detects browser capabilities and serves AVIF when supported. For other platforms, the <picture> element works everywhere. See our WordPress image compression guide for CMS-specific details.

Which Format Fits Your Workflow

Use AVIF when...

• You are building a website where page speed and bandwidth savings matter
• Your images include HDR content, wide color gamut photography, or require transparency
• You pre-build images at deploy time and encoding speed is not a constraint
• You want the smallest possible photographic files for web delivery

Keep JPG when...

• You send images via email, where AVIF rendering is inconsistent across clients
• Your CMS or workflow tools do not yet support AVIF
• You process images in real time and cannot absorb the 15x encoding overhead
• Universal compatibility is non-negotiable and fallback markup is not an option

For a comparison of the two leading modern formats, see our AVIF vs WebP analysis. For more format comparisons, explore the full comparison hub, or read our WebP vs JPG breakdown.