Home/WebP to PNG
100% local · nothing is ever uploadedConvert WebP to PNG
Keep the transparency a JPG conversion would throw away: drop your WebP files below and get back a PNG, entirely on your device. Works the same for one image or a whole batch downloaded as a ZIP.
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 WebP to PNG instead of JPG?
Transparency is the main reason: WebP supports a transparent background just like PNG does, and converting to JPG would fill that in with a solid color instead. Converting to PNG keeps it intact — worth doing whenever the source is a screenshot, logo, or graphic rather than a plain photo.
If the original WebP was saved in lossless mode, the PNG comes out lossless too, with every pixel preserved exactly — just re-encoded into a more widely-accepted format.
How to convert WebP to JPG or PNG →When PNG is the right target
PNG is the right choice when the image has flat colour, sharp edges, text, or a transparent background — screenshots, logos, icons, diagrams, line art. For that kind of content PNG is lossless, so nothing degrades, and the result is often smaller than a JPG of the same picture would be.
For a photograph, PNG is usually the wrong target. It stores every pixel exactly, which sounds appealing but means it can't take advantage of the fact that photographs contain enormous amounts of detail nobody would miss. A photo converted from WebP to PNG can easily come out several times larger than the file you started with, which is the single most common surprise on this page.
Why your PNG came out bigger
If the file grew rather than shrank, the conversion worked correctly and the format is doing what it's supposed to. PNG compresses by finding repetition — long runs of identical pixels, rows that resemble the one above. A screenshot of a settings panel is mostly flat grey and repeated shapes, so it collapses. A photograph of foliage has almost no exact repetition anywhere, so PNG has very little to work with and the file stays large.
Worth being clear about something else: converting a lossy WebP to PNG does not restore quality. The detail the WebP encoder discarded is gone, and PNG faithfully preserves the degraded pixels it was handed. You get a lossless copy of a lossy image — bigger, but not better. If size is what matters and the image is a photo, JPG is the target you want.
Transparency and pixel-exactness
Transparency is the main reason to choose PNG over JPG here. WebP supports an alpha channel and so does PNG, so a cut-out background survives the conversion intact. Sending the same file to JPG would fill it with solid white, irreversibly.
As for exactness: the conversion decodes the WebP and re-encodes those pixels as PNG without any further loss, so what you get is a faithful copy of the decoded image. If the source WebP was saved in lossless mode, that means a genuinely pixel-identical result in a more widely accepted format. If it was lossy, it means an exact copy of the lossy result — which is still what you want when the goal is compatibility rather than compression.
FAQ
Why is my PNG bigger than the WebP was?
Because PNG is lossless and WebP usually wasn't. PNG stores every pixel exactly instead of approximating, which is excellent for screenshots and graphics and expensive for photographs. If the source was a photo and you wanted a smaller file rather than a more compatible one, convert to JPG instead.
Does converting to PNG improve the image?
No. Nothing can restore detail a lossy encoder already discarded. PNG preserves exactly the pixels it receives, so you end up with a lossless copy of whatever quality the WebP had. It's the right conversion for compatibility and for keeping transparency — not for quality recovery.
Will a transparent background survive?
Yes. Both formats support an alpha channel, so transparency comes through intact. That's the main reason to pick PNG over JPG as the target — JPG has no transparency at all and would fill the background with white.