Can't I just publish HEIC directly on my website?

In practice, no. Web browsers generally do not display HEIC files directly, so most of your visitors would see a broken-image icon. HEIC was designed as an on-device storage format, not a web delivery format. Every HEIC photo you intend to publish on the web has to be converted to WEBP or JPG first.

Does going through two conversions damage the photo badly?

Because HEIC is already lossy, converting to WEBP or JPG adds a second round of lossy compression. At a sensible quality setting, however, the effect of that second round is indistinguishable on most photos under normal viewing conditions. To minimise the risk, do not push the quality setting too low and do the conversion in one step from the original HEIC. Converting a file that has already been turned into JPG to WEBP afterwards means adding a third round.

Which one for images with transparent backgrounds?

The JPG format defines no alpha channel in its structure, so it cannot be used for any image that requires transparency. WEBP supports an alpha channel in both its lossy and lossless modes and can store smooth opacity transitions per pixel. That means WEBP offers PNG's transparency at file sizes close to JPG's; for web images that need transparency it is by far the most efficient choice.

Publishing on the Web: HEIC to WEBP or to JPG?

Q: Does WEBP work in every browser, and should I provide a JPG fallback?

WEBP's browser support is now very broad and nearly all modern browsers display it without trouble. Even so, for critical images it is good practice to use HTML's picture element with WEBP as the primary source and JPG as the fallback; browsers that support WEBP download it, and those that do not fall back to JPG. This approach gives you both the speed gain and full compatibility. For a small site, using WEBP on its own causes no practical problems either.

On the web, HEIC is not an option

Let's start with the clearest fact: you cannot put a HEIC file directly on your website. Browsers generally do not display the format, and your visitors will see a broken-image icon.

HEIC was designed for on-device storage, not web delivery. So the question is not "HEIC or WEBP" but "what should I convert HEIC into" — and in practice there are two realistic answers: WEBP or JPG.

File size: WEBP's clear advantage

In web publishing, file size translates directly into page speed, and page speed translates directly into user experience and search ranking. This is therefore the heaviest item in the comparison.

At the same perceived visual quality, WEBP produces files roughly a quarter to a third smaller than JPG. On a page carrying dozens of images, that cumulative difference is substantial.

It is worth understanding where the gain comes from, though: WEBP's advantage is against JPG, not against HEIC. HEIC is already very efficient; moving from HEIC to WEBP can leave the file size similar. But had you converted that HEIC to JPG, the file would have grown. So what you "gain" by choosing WEBP is not losing the ground you would have lost by going to JPG.

Browser support: a real objection once, not any more

Until a few years ago the strongest argument against WEBP was patchy support. Today that argument has largely lost its force; WEBP works without trouble in nearly all modern browsers, and operating systems open it natively too.

It is true that JPG remains indisputably universal. But in practice that universality only matters to the small audience still browsing with very old browsers.

The safe approach is to serve both. With HTML's picture element you declare WEBP as the primary source and JPG as the fallback; browsers that support it download the smaller file, and those that do not download the compatible one. This method gives you speed and full compatibility together, and the only extra cost is producing two files.

Transparency: where the comparison ends

The JPG file structure defines no alpha-channel component. Each pixel carries colour information only, never opacity information. When you save a transparent image as JPG, the transparent regions get filled with a flat colour — usually white — and that cannot be undone.

WEBP supports an alpha channel in both its lossy and lossless modes. Smooth opacity transitions can be stored for every pixel, so the edges of a cut-out object look smooth rather than jagged against any background.

The practical value of this on the web is considerable: in the past, wanting a transparent image meant using PNG and swallowing the large file size. WEBP delivers transparency at far more reasonable file sizes. For product images, logos and cut-out objects, that alone is a decisive advantage.

Quality: a question of two conversions

HEIC is a lossy format. Some detail was permanently discarded the moment the photo was taken. Whichever target you pick, you will be adding a second round of lossy compression.

At a sensible quality setting the visible effect of that second round is indistinguishable on most photos under normal viewing conditions. The difference can surface in night shots and skies with wide gradients — the content that stresses compression hardest.

There are two rules for limiting the risk: do not push the quality setting too low, and do the conversion in a single step from the original HEIC. Converting a file that has already been turned into JPG to WEBP afterwards means adding a third round, and that is needless degradation.

Decisions by scenario

Blog post cover photo: WEBP. No transparency needed, but the size gain feeds straight into page speed.

Product image with a transparent background: WEBP. JPG is not an option, and PNG is needlessly large.

Image produced for a social media post: JPG. Most platforms re-compress uploads into their own format anyway, and some do not accept WEBP uploads.

Email newsletter image: JPG. Email clients lag browsers on format support, and universality matters more than speed here.

High-traffic gallery page: WEBP with a JPG fallback via the picture element. This is where the size gain does the most work.

A file going to a print shop or a corporate system: JPG or the original. Prepress tools and older corporate systems may not accept WEBP.

A practical workflow

A solid pipeline for web publishing works like this: keep your original HEIC files somewhere safe. Do the HEIC to WEBP conversion directly from the original for every image you publish. Resize the image to the dimensions you will actually display it at — showing a 4000-pixel-wide photo in an 800-pixel slot is a far bigger waste than any format choice. For critical images, also produce a JPG fallback and serve both through the picture element.

In summary

For web publishing your default answer should be WEBP: markedly smaller files than JPG, broad browser support and transparency support. Use JPG as a fallback source, for email images and for systems that do not accept WEBP. HEIC is not a format you put on the web directly under any circumstances; the conversion is mandatory, and all that remains is choosing the right target.