Home/JPG to AVIF
100% local · nothing is ever uploadedConvert JPG to AVIF
Drop your JPG files below. img-compress runs its own AVIF encoder in your browser, so conversion works the same in Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge — with no account and nothing leaving your device.
Drop your images here
or browse files
JPG, PNG, WebP, AVIF, or HEIC (Safari only) · processed locally · never uploaded · paste with Ctrl+V also works
No images yet. Drop some above to get started.
Why convert to AVIF?
AVIF is built on AV1, a newer video codec than the one behind WebP, and it shows: at the same visual quality, AVIF files typically come out 20-30% smaller than the WebP equivalent, with the biggest gains on photos. Every modern browser can display AVIF without issue, so there's no compatibility risk on the viewing side.
The one tradeoff is encoding speed — AVIF takes a bit longer to produce than WebP, especially across a large batch. For a single photo or a moderate set, the extra few seconds are a small price for a noticeably smaller file.
AVIF vs WebP: Why AVIF Compresses Better →How much you actually save
We measured it rather than repeating a number. Encoding the same photograph as JPG and as AVIF, matched on measured quality rather than on the quality setting — the settings are not comparable between codecs — the AVIF came out about 44% smaller than the JPG. That is the comparison that matters on this page, since JPG is what you're starting from.
Against WebP the advantage is real but narrower, and more content-dependent than the headline figures suggest. On our own grain-heavy test image AVIF beat WebP by around 12%, while published comparisons using perceptually matched quality commonly report 20-30%. Both are true of different images: the gap widens on large, smooth, detailed photographs and narrows on noisy ones.
Why it takes longer
AVIF is noticeably slower to encode than JPG or WebP, and that is not an implementation problem. AV1 can split an image into blocks ranging from tiny to very large and choose per region, with many more ways to predict each block from its neighbours. Searching that much larger space of possible encodings is where the extra compression comes from, and it costs time.
For one image it's imperceptible. For a folder of four hundred it's the difference between a coffee break and an afternoon. If you're converting a large batch and turnaround matters more than the last few percent, WebP gets there considerably faster at a modest size cost.
Where AVIF isn't the answer
Very small images. AVIF carries more structural overhead per file, and below a certain size that overhead stops paying for itself. Encoding the same flat icon at a fixed quality, we measured WebP coming out smaller at 40 pixels a side and below, with AVIF only pulling ahead from 48 px up. Favicons and tiny avatars are not where it helps.
Uploads, too. Every browser still receiving updates displays AVIF, so there is no risk on the viewing side — but acceptance is a separate question, and AVIF is newer than WebP, so it fares worse. Upload forms, older desktop applications, print workflows and content management systems all accept it less often. If something rejects your file, converting to JPG or PNG is the fix rather than switching between modern formats.
FAQ
Why is the conversion taking so long?
Because AVIF searches a much larger space of possible encodings than JPG or WebP, which is exactly where its extra compression comes from. It's working, not stuck. A large batch is a good moment to leave the tab open and do something else — and if speed matters more than the last few percent of size, WebP is the faster target.
Will everyone be able to see an AVIF file?
On the web, yes — every browser still receiving updates displays AVIF without a fallback. Outside the browser it's less settled: some upload forms, older desktop software and print workflows still don't accept it. Displaying a format and accepting an upload of it are different problems.
Should I use AVIF or WebP?
AVIF for photographs at normal quality settings and reasonable dimensions, which covers most images on most websites. WebP for screenshots and flat graphics, for anything under about 40 pixels where AVIF's overhead outweighs it, and for large batches where encoding time matters. Neither is universally better.