HEIC vs WebP
These two formats barely compete, because they solve the problem in different places: one on the device, one on the web.
The specifications compared
| Attribute | HEIC | WebP |
|---|---|---|
| Developed by | MPEG, adopted by Apple | |
| Codec | HEVC (H.265) | VP8, and VP8L for lossless |
| 12 MP photo | 1.6 MB | 1.9 MB |
| Browser support | None | Universal since 2020 |
| Transparency | Yes | Yes |
| Lossless mode | Yes | Yes |
| Animation | Image sequences | Yes |
| Colour depth | Up to 16-bit | 8-bit |
| Patent status | Encumbered | Royalty-free |
| Max dimensions | Very large | 16383 × 16383 |
Compression, honestly
HEIC compresses better, usually 15 to 25% smaller than WebP at matched quality, because HEVC is a more advanced codec than VP8. But the gap is much narrower than HEIC versus JPG, and it narrows further at the quality levels websites actually use.
For a photograph destined for a web page at quality 80, the difference between HEIC and WebP is a few hundred kilobytes. The difference in whether a visitor can see the image is total.
Choosing between them
- Photos on your phone — HEIC. Better compression, and the platform handles it natively.
- Images on a website — WebP, or AVIF with a WebP fallback. HEIC is not an option at all here.
- Sending to other people, neither, usually. JPG remains the safest for email and attachments.
- Screenshots and graphics — lossless WebP. Smaller than PNG with identical pixels.
- Archiving originals — keep whatever the camera produced, which is HEIC on an iPhone.
Where AVIF fits
AVIF beats both on compression and has browser support HEIC never achieved. Its drawbacks are slower encoding and slightly narrower support than WebP — a handful of older email clients and desktop applications still do not read it.
The current best practice for the web is AVIF first, WebP as fallback, JPG as last resort, served
through a <picture> element or a CDN that negotiates format. HEIC does not appear in
that chain anywhere, and never will.
Converting HEIC for a website. Go straight to WebP rather than routing through JPG. Each lossy re-encode compounds, so HEIC to JPG to WebP looks worse than HEIC to WebP and takes longer. The direct converter is here.
Common questions
- Is HEIC better than WebP?
- For compression, yes, typically 15 to 25 percent smaller at matched quality. For actually being displayed on a website, WebP wins outright, because no browser decodes HEIC.
- Can browsers display HEIC images?
- No. Despite the format being nearly a decade old, no major browser ships an HEVC still-image decoder, because of the patent licensing involved.
- Should I use WebP or AVIF for my website?
- AVIF where you can serve fallbacks, since it compresses better. WebP if you want a single format with the broadest modern support. Serving AVIF with a WebP fallback covers both.
- Does WebP support transparency?
- Yes, in both its lossy and lossless modes, which is one of its main advantages over JPG for graphics and logos.