JPEG XL vs AVIF
Both store photographs, but they make different trade-offs. Here is where they actually differ, and how to pick.
Short answer
On compression they are close, with JPEG XL ahead on high-fidelity and lossless work. On browser support they are not close at all, and that is what decides it for anything published on the web today.
Why this comes up
This is the format-politics comparison. Both are modern, both are technically excellent, and the reason one is everywhere and the other is not has more to do with who shipped a decoder than with image quality. If you are choosing for the open web, the decision is already made for you. If you are choosing for an archive, it is genuinely open.
Side by side
| Property | JPEG XL | AVIF |
|---|---|---|
| Compression | Lossy | Lossy |
| Transparency | Yes | Yes |
| Typical file size | 45-60% of an equivalent JPEG | 40-55% of an equivalent JPEG |
| Compatibility | Safari and recent Chrome; still uncommon elsewhere | All current browsers; some older desktop apps lag behind |
| Usually comes from | Long-term archives and photography workflows | Websites optimising page weight |
What actually differs
Browser support is the whole story
As of August 2026, Safari has shipped JPEG XL out of the box since 2023 and remains the only browser that does; Chrome 145 contains a decoder but keeps it behind a flag, with default-on expected later in 2026. Out-of-the-box coverage sits around 14%. AVIF, by contrast, is on by default in every current major browser. These numbers move — check them before relying on this paragraph.
JPEG XL can losslessly repack existing JPEGs
This is its most distinctive capability and it has no AVIF equivalent. JPEG XL can take an existing JPEG and re-encode it roughly 20% smaller with bit-exact reversibility — you can reconstruct the original JPEG byte for byte. For an archive of millions of legacy JPEGs that is a fifth of the storage bill with no decision about quality loss to make.
AVIF inherits an entire video ecosystem
AVIF is a still image wrapped in AV1, which means it rides on hardware decoders, streaming infrastructure and a decade of industry investment aimed at video bandwidth. JPEG XL was designed for images from the start and is arguably the better image format, but it has no such tailwind. In practice that is why one shipped everywhere and the other did not.
Which to use
Use JPEG XL for
Archives, photography libraries, and internal pipelines where you control the software — especially if you hold a large body of existing JPEGs.
Use AVIF for
Anything published to the open web, where default browser support is not optional and AVIF is the only one of the two that has it.
One thing that catches people out
Much of what you will read about JPEG XL is out of date
Chrome removed its JPEG XL flag in 2023, and a large amount of commentary still written from that moment declares the format dead. The situation since then has moved the other way. Whatever you read about its support status — this page included — check the date on it before acting.