PNG to WebP
Smaller pages, with transparency intact.
Your file
Drop a file here, or click to choose
It stays on this device. Nothing is sent anywhere.
Settings
Worth doing for the web
WebP is typically 25 to 35% smaller than PNG for graphics and much smaller than that for photographs, and it keeps the alpha channel. Every browser in current use reads it. If you are optimising a page, this is one of the easiest wins available.
Quality 85 is a good default. For logos and flat graphics you can go higher without much cost, because there is little detail to throw away.
What you are actually saving
The saving depends heavily on what the picture is, and it is worth knowing which case you are in before deciding whether the conversion is worth the trouble.
- Photographs and screenshots with photographic content see the largest gains, often 60 to 80% smaller, because PNG was the wrong format for them to begin with.
- Flat graphics, logos and icons see something more like 25 to 35%. PNG already handles large areas of identical color well, so there is less on the table.
- Small images under a few kilobytes sometimes get slightly larger, because WebP's container overhead is a bigger share of a tiny file. Check the result panel rather than assuming.
Transparency survives, including the soft parts
WebP carries a full alpha channel, not a one-bit on-or-off mask, so anti-aliased edges, drop shadows and gradients that fade to nothing all come through intact. This is the practical difference between WebP and the old alternative of converting to GIF, where a soft-edged logo would come back with a jagged halo. If your PNG has a shadow under it, it will still have a shadow.
Where it will not open
Every browser released in the last several years reads WebP, including Safari from version 14, so for anything going on a web page this is a settled question. Outside the browser it is patchier: older versions of Windows Photo Viewer, some email clients, a number of print workflows and various pieces of enterprise software will refuse it. That is the reason to keep your PNG rather than replace it, and the reason the conversion back exists.
Keep the PNG as the master in any case. At any quality below 100 this is a lossy encode, so editing the WebP later and re-saving compounds the loss, exactly as it would with JPEG.
Common questions
Does WebP support transparency?
Yes, fully, including partial transparency.
Should I keep the PNG?
Keep it as your source. WebP at anything under quality 100 is lossy, so re-editing from the WebP compounds the loss.