JPEG-XL is not the best solution if you want small low-quality images, to reduce your costs for hosting some Web site. AVIF seems appropriate for that goal.

JPEG-XL seems to be the best solution for storing and distributing high-quality images. For myself, I want high-quality images, so JPEG-XL is what matters, both for new images and for compressing the old archives of JPEG images.

While I have my own Web server, it is for private use and not for commercial purposes, so I have no interest in using AVIF to achieve the smallest image sizes, but at a lower quality than I want.

▲

jaffathecake 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Please read the article. All of the comparisons default to "high" quality, according to JXL's own metric.

▲

adrian_b 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Most of the comparisons are not about what I would call "high quality" images.

And the article supports what I have said.

Quotation from the article:

> But JPEG XL catches up at very high quality. Around SSIMULACRA2 85, libjxl's default matches AVIF's default, and at maximum efforts, jixel 'extraslow' is ~6% smaller than AVIF s0. jixel 'slow' is 10–13% smaller than AVIF's default from SSIMULACRA2 80 upwards.

	▲	JyrkiAlakuijala an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I believe that: ssimulacra2 85 is rather close to median quality in the internet ssimulacra2 90-95 is rather close to high quality in the internet ssimulacra2 98+ is close to camera quality
	▲	jaffathecake an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		'high quality' and 'very high quality' are different things.