Published on Apr 02, 2025 5 min read

Which Free Converter Keeps Image Quality: PNG to JPG or PNG to WEBP?

In today’s digital world, converting image formats is a common task. Whether for websites, documents, or mobile sharing, image files often need to be optimized in both size and quality. The two most popular formats for compressing images are JPG and WEBP—but which one preserves quality best when converting from PNG?

This post explores the difference between converting PNG to JPG and PNG to WEBP, with a focus on free converters available online. It also examines which format is better for different use cases and evaluates top tools that help users convert images without losing too much detail.

Why People Convert PNG Files

PNG files are known for having high-quality images and backgrounds that can be seen through. They do, however, tend to have big file sizes. For this reason, many people convert PNG images to either JPG or WEBP, which can significantly reduce file size.

People often convert PNGs for:

• Faster website loading speeds
• Reduced file size for email or upload limits
• Improved mobile performance
• Compatibility with older platforms (in the case of JPG)

While file size is important, the key concern remains: Does the image lose too much quality in the process?

JPG vs. WEBP: Format Breakdown

Before comparing converters, it’s essential to understand how the two output formats—JPG and WEBP—affect quality differently.

JPG (or JPEG) Format

JPG is one of the oldest and most widely accepted image formats. It compresses images by removing some of the data, known as lossy compression.

Strengths of JPG:

• Works on all devices and platforms
• Produces smaller file sizes
• Great for photographs and casual use

Weaknesses of JPG:

• Does not support transparency
• It may show a noticeable loss of quality if over-compressed
• Not ideal for graphics or text-heavy visuals

WEBP Format

WEBP is a newer file that Google made. It works with both lossy and lossless compression, which means it can shrink files without losing quality.

Strengths of WEBP:

• Typically, better compression than JPG with less quality loss
• Supports transparency (like PNG)
• Good for web usage and modern apps

Weaknesses of WEBP:

• It is not supported by some older tools or platforms
• Slightly slower rendering in certain cases
• It may not be suitable for printing or offline viewing tools

The comparison shows that WEBP is technically better in terms of preserving image detail during compression, but JPG is more widely compatible.

What to Expect from Free Converters

Free converters online offer easy tools to switch formats, but they vary in quality. Some compress too much and damage image clarity, while others preserve details but limit features.

Important things to look for in a good free converter:

• Image resolution options
• Compression level control
• No watermarks or file size restrictions
• Support for batch conversions
• Fast and secure processing

Comparing the Best Free Converters

Several free online tools let users convert PNG to either JPG or WEBP. Below is an analysis of some of the most popular options and how well they maintain image quality.

Squoosh by Google

Squoosh is a powerful browser-based converter built by Google. It offers side-by-side image previews and allows users to select compression levels manually.

Format Support: JPG, WEBP, AVIF

Pros:

• Excellent quality retention
• No account needed
• Clear quality settings

Cons:

• Only converts one image at a time
• Browser-only tool

Best for: Users who want control over output quality and format comparison

Convertio

Convertio is a user-friendly cloud converter that handles multiple formats and is suitable for casual users.

Format Support: JPG, WEBP, and many more

Pros:

• Supports batch conversion
• Drag-and-drop interface
• Cloud integration with Google Drive and Dropbox

Cons:

• Limited conversions for free users
• File size cap for unpaid usage

Best for: Beginners who need quick conversions without customization

CloudConvert

CloudConvert is ideal for more advanced users. It allows fine-tuning of compression levels and output size.

Format Support: JPG, WEBP, and more

Pros:

• Customizable conversion settings
• Reliable output quality
• Wide format support

Cons:

• The free plan is limited
• The interface may be slightly complex

Best for: Power users who need consistent quality and batch features

ILoveIMG

This tool focuses on JPG conversions and is extremely beginner-friendly.

Format Support: JPG only

Pros:

• Simple interface
• Fast results
• Also offers resize and compress features

Cons:

• Does not support WEBP
• Limited quality control

Best for: Users who want fast PNG to JPG conversion with minimal setup

Quality Comparison: JPG vs. WEBP After Conversion

Using the same PNG image across all platforms, general results show:

• WEBP files are usually 25–35% smaller than JPG while maintaining similar quality
• JPG images sometimes show more noticeable blurring or loss of sharp edges
• WEBP supports transparency, making it a better replacement for PNG in web projects

However, the actual outcome depends on how much compression is applied and whether the converter allows users to adjust quality settings.

Recommendations Based on the Use Case

When choosing between PNG to JPG or PNG to WEBP conversion, the decision depends on the project.

Go with JPG if:

• You need high compatibility with old software or browsers
• File size is important, but transparency isn’t needed
• You’re working with photos, not graphics or text-heavy visuals

Go with WEBP if:

• You want the best balance of size and quality
• You need transparency (like in logos or UI icons)
• Your platform supports modern image formats (most browsers do)

Conclusion

Free converters are a convenient way to handle image format changes, but choosing the right tool and format matters if preserving image quality is important. While JPG is still reliable and widely accepted, WEBP often outperforms it in size and quality—especially when using a smart converter like Squoosh or CloudConvert. For those dealing with personal websites, modern apps, or digital content, WEBP is likely the better choice. For traditional platforms or basic tasks, JPG may still be more practical.