Should I switch my site from JPG to WebP?

Yes, for the images. Image weight is a large part of Largest Contentful Paint, which is a Core Web Vital, so the saving translates into a measurable speed and ranking benefit rather than just a smaller folder.

Is WebP quality worse than JPG?

At the same file size WebP is generally better — its artefacts are a mild softness rather than JPG’s blocky squares and ringing around edges. At the same quality setting it is simply smaller.

JPG vs WebP

WebP is smaller than JPG at matching quality — commonly 25–35% smaller — and it adds transparency, which JPG has never had. For a website, use WebP. JPG remains the safer format for files sent to people or to systems whose software you cannot predict.

	JPG	WebP
File size at equal quality	Baseline	25–35% smaller
Transparency	No	Yes
Lossless option	No	Yes
Animation	No	Yes
Artefacts at low quality	Blocking and ringing	Smoother, slightly soft
Camera and device output	The default everywhere	Rare as a capture format

Use JPG for

·Sending photos to people
·Uploads to older systems
·Anything printed

Use WebP for

·Photographs on a website
·Any image where transparency is needed
·Page speed and Core Web Vitals

Convert to WebP Convert to JPG

Other comparisons

PNG vs JPG PNG vs WebP PNG vs SVG