Convert WebP to AVIF
Output is typically about 33% smaller.
- Files stay on your device
- Free, no sign-up
Related tools
All image toolsQuestions
Is AVIF enough of an improvement over WebP to bother?
For a photograph, commonly 25 to 50 percent smaller at the same perceived quality; for flat graphics, often under 10 percent, because there was little left to remove. Meaningful across a catalogue of thousands, marginal across a dozen. WebP still wins on encoding speed by a wide margin, and on support outside the browser. The strongest case for switching is a page where images dominate the load and the encode happens once at build time.
Do both formats support the same things?
Broadly, and AVIF goes further. Both handle lossy and lossless compression, transparency and animation. AVIF adds higher bit depths, wide colour gamut and HDR, and it handles film grain and smooth gradients noticeably better. WebP's advantages are practical rather than technical: it encodes far faster and more software can open it.
Will transparency and animation survive?
Transparency yes, fully — AVIF has a proper alpha channel. Animation is a different matter: this tool converts a single still image, so an animated WebP comes out as its first frame. Converting animation between these formats needs a video pipeline rather than an image converter.
Which should I actually serve?
Both, if you can. A picture element listing AVIF first and WebP second lets each browser take the best format it understands, with no JavaScript and no user-agent guessing. If you can only serve one and your traffic is mostly recent browsers, AVIF; if you need the widest compatibility with the least effort, WebP.
Will converting WebP to AVIF make the file smaller?
Usually, yes. A 12-megapixel photo is around 2.1 MB as WebP and around 1.4 MB as AVIF — about 33% smaller. Because AVIF is lossless the result depends entirely on the image content — flat colour and text compress far better than photographic detail.
Does converting WebP to AVIF lose quality?
A little, by design. WebP is lossless and AVIF is lossy, so some detail is discarded in exchange for a much smaller file. At quality 80–90 the result is visually indistinguishable from the original for photographs. For screenshots, logos or anything with sharp text, stay with a lossless format instead — lossy compression creates visible halos around hard edges.
Is transparency preserved when converting WebP to AVIF?
Yes. Both WebP and AVIF support an alpha channel, so transparent and semi-transparent pixels carry across unchanged — a logo with a cut-out background stays cut out, and soft drop shadows keep their gradient rather than picking up a white halo. Because AVIF can compress lossily, a very hard edge against transparency may pick up slight softness at high compression; keep quality at 85 or above for cut-out graphics.
What happens to an animated WebP?
Only the first frame is converted. Every conversion here decodes one frame onto a canvas and re-encodes it, so the result is always a still image — that applies to AVIF as much as to any other target. To shrink an animation while keeping the motion, a video file (MP4 or WebM) is usually around a tenth of the size of the equivalent WebP, and needs an encoder we do not ship yet.
Should I use AVIF or WebP?
AVIF files are typically 25–35% smaller than WebP at the same quality, which is a real win on image-heavy pages. The trade-offs are much slower encoding and a support floor of Safari 16.4 (March 2023), so a small share of visitors cannot see it. Serve AVIF with a WebP fallback via a <picture> element if you want both.
How it works, and more about webp to avif
How it works
- Add your WebP file. Drag a WebP file onto the drop zone, or click to browse. You can select several at once.
- Choose your settings. Adjust the quality slider if you want a smaller file or a sharper result. 80 suits most photographs.
- Download the AVIF. Conversion runs on your device as soon as each file is added — no upload, no queue. Download each result when it is ready.
Why people convert WebP to AVIF
Already on the modern-formats path and going one step further. Someone who converted to WebP a few years ago and is now looking at whether AVIF is worth a second migration.
Honest answer: the gain is real but much smaller than the jump from JPEG was, and it depends heavily on the picture. Measured on our own test images at matching quality: about half the size for a photographic gradient, a quarter off a screenshot, and under 10 percent off a small flat logo. Worth it for a large library of photographs or a page under real performance pressure; not worth a second transcoding generation for a handful of images that already load quickly.
Worth knowing: This is a third generation for any image that started as a JPEG. Each lossy encode reproduces the previous one's artefacts as if they were detail. If the originals still exist, converting those to AVIF gives a cleaner result at a smaller size than converting the WebPs.
WebP and AVIF side by side
| WebP | AVIF | |
|---|---|---|
| Full name | WebP | AV1 Image File Format |
| Compression | Lossy or lossless | Lossy or lossless |
| Transparency | Yes — alpha channel | Yes — alpha channel |
| Animation | Yes | Yes, in the format |
| Browser support | All modern browsers — Chrome 32+, Firefox 65+, Safari 14+ (2020), Edge 18+ | Chrome 85+, Firefox 93+, Safari 16.4+ (March 2023), Edge 121+ |
| Typical 12 MP photo | ~2.1 MB | ~1.4 MB |
| Usually used for | Web images where page weight matters and modern browsers are the audience | Performance-critical web images where every kilobyte counts |
On a typical 12-megapixel phone photo, the AVIF output comes out about 33% smaller than the WebP original. These are order-of-magnitude figures for one kind of image — your own results will vary a great deal, because flat colour, text and line art behave nothing like photographic detail, and the quality slider moves the figure substantially.
What this tool actually produces
Not estimates. Each row below was produced by running the file through this page in a real browser and measuring the result, at the default quality of 82.
| Test image | WebP in | AVIF out | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Smooth gradient 1600 × 1200, broad tonal transitions — where banding and blocking show | 175 KB | 83 KB | -52% |
| UI screenshot 1440 × 900, dense text on flat panels — the hardest case for JPEG | 44 KB | 33 KB | -25% |
| Line-art diagram 1200 × 800, hard edges and large flat areas | 12 KB | 10 KB | -17% |
| Logo with transparency 512 × 512, flat colour on a transparent background | 7 KB | 6 KB | -9% |
Every test image got smaller, though by very different margins — flat colour and text behave nothing like photographic detail, so treat the closest row to your own content as the useful one. Measured in Chrome 150.0.7871.46; other browsers encode slightly differently.
What to watch out for
- Encoding is computationally expensive and noticeably slow
- Requires Safari 16.4+ (2023), so a small share of users still miss it
- Sparse support outside browsers — most desktop editors cannot open it
- Animation is lost. Only the first frame is converted — every conversion here decodes a single frame onto a canvas and re-encodes it, so the result is a still image whatever the target format. To shrink an animation and keep the motion, a video file is typically around a tenth of the size of the equivalent WebP.
About the two formats
WebP is the pragmatic modern choice for the web: roughly 25–35% smaller than JPEG at comparable quality, with transparency and animation that JPEG lacks, and — since Safari 14 in 2020 — support in every browser that matters. It is the format to reach for when you want smaller pages without worrying about fallbacks.
AVIF currently produces the smallest files of any widely supported format — commonly half the size of JPEG at the same perceived quality, with excellent handling of gradients and noise. The cost is encoding time, which can be seconds per image rather than milliseconds, and support that only became universal with Safari 16.4 in 2023.
Other conversions
Everything runs on your device — nothing is uploaded, so there is no size limit, no queue and no copy left on a server afterwards. There is more on how browser-based conversion works if you want the detail. Otherwise, browse every image tool, or convert AVIF back to WebP.