JPEG XL vs AVIF: Next-Gen Comparison
Battle of the next-gen formats.
100% Free
No Signup
Files Deleted in 24h
How It Works
1
Upload an image We convert to both formats.
2
Compare results See file sizes and quality.
3
Understand trade-offs Browser support vs compression.
Why JXL vs AVIF?
JPEG XL and AVIF are both designed to replace JPEG with dramatically better compression. But they have different strengths and very different browser support stories.
JPEG XL: Technically superior in many ways. Faster encoding, lossless JPEG recompression, progressive decoding. But Chrome dropped support in 2023, limiting adoption.
AVIF: Excellent compression, especially at low bitrates. Based on AV1 video codec. Supported by Chrome, Firefox, and Safari 16+.
The verdict: For web use today, AVIF wins on browser support. JPEG XL is technically excellent but needs broader adoption.
Format Comparison
| Feature | JPG | AVIF |
|---|---|---|
| Compression | JXL: Excellent | AVIF: Excellent |
| Browser support | JXL: Limited (Firefox, Safari) | AVIF: 93%+ (Chrome, Firefox, Safari) |
| Encoding speed | JXL: Faster | AVIF: Slower |
| Lossless JPG recompression | JXL: Yes (unique) | AVIF: No |
| Progressive loading | JXL: Yes | AVIF: No |
| HDR support | JXL: Excellent | AVIF: Good |
Frequently Asked Questions
Google cited lack of ecosystem interest. The decision was controversial—many developers disagreed. Firefox and Safari continue to support JXL.
AVIF for web delivery today due to Chrome support. Consider JXL for archival, photography workflows, or if your audience primarily uses Firefox/Safari.
Yes, uniquely. JXL can wrap existing JPG data with additional compression, typically saving 20%, while perfectly reconstructing the original JPG when decoded.