Webp lossy is better (compresses more with higher quality image results) than jpeg at everything except smooth gradients at high quality settings according to the research I remember doing. Webp lossy can't seem to get rid of banding until you go ultra high quality settings. Jpeg can show blue skies without banding at much more reasonable quality settings. So webp is better at anything where smaller files is preferred, like all website usage. Jpeg is better for long term storage of very high quality lossy compressed images.

I chose webp for long term storage of scanned documents in our SaaS product, as size reduction was more important than no banding.

Also webp has excellent support in modern software and operating systems. So that's not a drawback any more. JpegXL will be the best of all worlds choice in a few years when software support is good.

▲

Implicated 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> JpegXL will be the best of all worlds choice in a few years when software support is good.

Where is the software support lacking other than the browsers at this point?

	▲	HappMacDonald 21 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		File explorer support, thumbnails, local image viewers and editors, import into other media software like slideshows, video editors, 3d modeling software, etc etc.
	▲	_bent 29 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The encoder currently isn't using a lot of format features like curves or layers (which would partially also require deeper integration in for example Photoshop to pass such information to the encoder).