Is AVIF Replacing WebP?

AVIF is not replacing WebP — the two coexist in a layered stack. AVIF compresses roughly 20–30% smaller than WebP and is the choice for the lowest payloads, but WebP keeps wider browser support, faster encoding, and smaller files for simple graphics. Most sites serve AVIF with a WebP fallback rather than choosing one. This guide explains how the formats relate and where each fits.

For the format itself, see What is WebP?. For the head-to-head, see WebP vs AVIF.

Is AVIF replacing WebP?

AVIF is not replacing WebP; it sits above it as an optional, more aggressive layer. Browsers that support AVIF receive it; the rest fall back to WebP. Because the <picture> element serves both, adopting AVIF does not mean dropping WebP — it means adding a format on top.

The framing "AVIF vs WebP" misleads. In practice it is "AVIF then WebP", a preference chain, not a replacement.

How do AVIF and WebP differ?

AVIF compresses smaller and supports HDR; WebP encodes faster, supports more browsers, and wins on small or simple images. AVIF derives from the AV1 video codec (2019); WebP from the VP8 codec (2010). Both are royalty-free and support lossy, lossless, transparency, and animation.

The key numbers: AVIF is ~20–30% smaller than WebP on photographs, WebP support is ~97% versus AVIF's ~95%, and WebP encoding is several times faster. Full detail is in WebP vs AVIF.

Where does AVIF win?

AVIF wins where payload size is paramount and the content is photographic. Its newer codec compresses large photos smaller than WebP at equal quality, and it supports HDR and wide colour gamuts that WebP cannot represent. For hero images and bandwidth-sensitive sites, AVIF's savings are real.

AVIF's advantage narrows on small images and simple graphics, where its encoding overhead can produce files no smaller — sometimes larger — than WebP.

Where does WebP still win?

WebP wins on browser support, encoding speed, and small or simple images. It renders in slightly more browsers, encodes several times faster (important for large build pipelines), and often produces smaller files for icons, logos, and thumbnails where AVIF's overhead does not pay off.

WebP also has the more mature ecosystem: broader CMS, CDN, and editor support. For most sites it remains the dependable default, as argued in PNG vs JPG vs WebP vs AVIF: The Complete Web Image Format Guide.

Should you switch from WebP to AVIF?

Do not switch — add AVIF above WebP if the savings justify the cost. Serve AVIF first and WebP as the fallback, so capable browsers get the smaller file and the rest keep WebP. Switching entirely would drop the ~5% of users without AVIF support to a legacy fallback unnecessarily.

For a site already serving WebP, adding AVIF yields a further 5–15% on photographic content, weighed against extra encoding time and a second <source>. Implement it with the <picture> element or automatically via next/image.

What about JPEG XL?

JPEG XL is a strong format that browser support sidelines. It was removed from Chrome and ships by default only in Safari, so it is not part of the practical web stack. It does not threaten WebP or AVIF for general web delivery today.

The full comparison is in WebP vs JPEG XL and the JPEG XL format overview.

What is the future of web image formats?

The near-term future is a coexisting stack, not a single winner. AVIF grows for high-compression delivery, WebP remains the universal default, and JPG and PNG persist as fallbacks. JPEG XL waits on browser support. The <picture> element makes serving several formats routine, so "the best format" is whichever each browser can take.

Build for the stack, not the single format: AVIF → WebP → JPG/PNG fallback, chosen per browser automatically.

Where to go from here

• WebP vs AVIF: Which Format Should You Use?
• PNG vs JPG vs WebP vs AVIF: The Complete Web Image Format Guide
• WebP vs JPEG XL: Compression, Browser Support & the Future
• How to Serve WebP Images in HTML Using the picture Element
• What is WebP? A Complete Guide to the WebP Image Format

AVIF is not replacing WebP — it is layering on top of it. Serve both, keep a legacy fallback, and let each browser take the smallest format it supports.