PNG vs JPG: Which Image Format Should You Use?

What is the difference between PNG and JPG?

PNG is lossless and supports transparency; JPG is lossy and does not. In practice that makes JPG the format for photographs and anything you send, and PNG the format for graphics, screenshots you will edit again, and anything that needs a transparent background. The rest of this guide is the why, and the edge cases.

How they compress, and why it matters

JPG is lossy: it discards visual detail your eye is unlikely to miss, which is why a photo can shrink to a tenth of its raw size and still look identical. The catch is that the discarding is permanent, and it happens again every time you re-save: edit a JPG ten times and the damage accumulates.

PNG is lossless: every pixel is preserved exactly, no matter how many times you open and re-save the file. The price is size: for photographic content a PNG is routinely 5-10x larger than a visually identical JPG, which is why photo libraries and websites don't use it for photos.

Side by side

Which is smaller, PNG or JPG?

For a photograph, JPG, and not by a small margin: the same picture saved as PNG is routinely five to ten times larger. JPG was designed for exactly this content, and PNG's promise to preserve every pixel exactly is expensive when the picture contains millions of subtly different ones.

For flat graphics the answer flips. A logo, a chart, a screenshot of a settings panel, a line drawing, anything built from large areas of solid colour, often compresses smaller as a PNG than as a JPG, because PNG's compression is very good at runs of identical pixels while JPG has to work hard to reproduce a hard edge and leaves smudges around it while trying.

So the honest version of "which is smaller" is: it depends what the picture is made of. Photograph, use JPG. Solid colours and sharp edges, try PNG first. If a PNG you need to keep as a PNG is too big, the Image Compressor shrinks it without touching the transparency.

Is PNG better quality than JPG?

This is the question that causes the most trouble, because "quality" is doing two jobs at once. PNG is more faithful: it reproduces the source file exactly, pixel for pixel, forever. That is not the same as looking better.

Save a photograph as a high-quality JPG and put it beside the PNG of the same photograph. On screen you will not be able to tell them apart, and the JPG will be a fraction of the size. The fidelity PNG is protecting is real, but on a photograph most of it is detail the eye was never going to resolve.

Where PNG's fidelity earns its size is on the things JPG handles badly: text, thin lines, hard boundaries between colours, and any file you will open and re-save repeatedly. A screenshot saved as JPG picks up a visible haze around the lettering. Saved as PNG it stays exactly as sharp as it was on your screen.

When JPG wins

• Photographs of any kind: the compression is designed for them.
• Email attachments and upload forms with size limits.
• Web pages where load speed matters (or go further with WebP).
• Final deliverables that nobody will edit again.

When PNG wins

• Logos, icons, and any graphic needing a transparent background.
• Screenshots with text or UI: JPG artifacts show around sharp edges.
• Files you'll keep editing: PNG never loses quality on re-save.
• Line art, charts, and flat-color graphics (these often compress smaller as PNG than as JPG).

Does converting PNG to JPG lose quality?

Yes, once, at the moment you convert, and how much depends on the quality setting you choose rather than on the conversion itself. At a high setting the loss on a photograph is invisible. On a screenshot full of text it is not, and that is the case where converting is usually the wrong idea.

The change people are less prepared for is transparency. JPG has no alpha channel at all, so any transparent area in the PNG becomes a solid background, normally white. There is no setting for this; it is the format. If you need the transparency, the file has to stay a PNG or become a WebP.

Going the other way, JPG to PNG stops any further loss but cannot undo what has already happened. The detail the JPG discarded is gone, and wrapping it in a lossless container preserves the damage perfectly rather than repairing it. Convert to PNG before an editing session, not after one.

Converting between them

Both directions take seconds in your browser, with nothing uploaded: PNG to JPG shrinks graphics-turned-photos for sharing, and JPG to PNG gives a photo a lossless container before editing. One expectation to set: converting JPG to PNG stops future quality loss but can't restore detail the JPG already threw away.

Sharing a PNG that must stay a PNG? The Image Compressor squeezes it losslessly instead.

The same reasoning applies to the older and newer formats you may be handed. Scans arrive as TIFF, Windows screenshots and clip art as BMP, single frames as GIF, and images saved from modern websites as AVIF: all four convert to JPG when you need something every app will open.

Common questions

Is PNG or JPG better?

Neither, for all cases. JPG is better for photographs and for anything you are sending, because it is far smaller at a quality difference you cannot see. PNG is better for graphics, screenshots, transparency, and files you will keep editing.

Which format is smaller, PNG or JPG?

JPG for photographs, by five to ten times. PNG is often smaller for flat graphics, logos, and screenshots, because its compression handles large areas of identical colour very efficiently.

Can a PNG have a transparent background?

Yes. PNG has a full alpha channel, which is the main reason to choose it. JPG has none, so saving a transparent image as JPG fills the transparent area with white. How to make an image background transparent covers this in full.

Does converting PNG to JPG reduce quality?

It loses a little detail once, at a level you are unlikely to notice on a photograph and quite likely to notice on text or a screenshot. It also removes any transparency, replacing it with a solid background.

Is a PNG the same as a JPG?

No. They store pictures in completely different ways: PNG keeps every pixel exactly and can hold transparency, JPG throws away detail to save space and cannot. Renaming a file from .png to .jpg does not convert it and usually breaks it.

Which format should I use for a website?

JPG for photographs, PNG for logos and anything needing transparency, or WebP for both, which is smaller than either and supported by every current browser. PNG vs WebP and JPG vs WebP compare them directly.

Try it yourself

• PNG→JPGPNG to JPGConvert PNG images to JPG with adjustable quality.
• JPG→PNGJPG to PNGConvert JPG photos to lossless PNG images.
• IMG→MINImage CompressorShrink JPG, PNG, and WebP file sizes.

These live under Image tools, alongside the rest of the image formats explained guides on the guides page.

Keep reading

• PNG vs WebP: What's the Difference?
• JPG vs WebP: Which Is Better?