What is the one thing I should look at when deciding?

The first and most decisive question is this: does the image have transparent areas? If it does and you need to preserve that transparency, the comparison ends right there — PNG is the only option, because JPG does not support the alpha channel at all. If there is no transparency, the decision shifts to content type: for a photograph JPG gives the better result, and for a graphic containing text and sharp edges PNG does.

Since PNG is lossless, wouldn't it be safer to always pick PNG?

It would not, because PNG's losslessness does not bring back information already lost in the file you have. If the source WEBP was compressed lossily, converting to PNG merely freezes the current picture as it stands; the existing compression traces carry over unchanged. In return, on photographic content the file size grows dramatically. Choose PNG for specific needs, not as a security blanket.

What should I convert a WEBP containing a screenshot to?

PNG. Screenshots contain text, interface edges and large flat color areas. On this kind of content JPG creates noise around text edges and halos at sharp transitions, reducing legibility. PNG, by contrast, packs large single-color areas efficiently, so it both stays visually clean and keeps the file size reasonable for this content type.

Can I convert to both formats and decide afterwards?

You can, and it is in fact a sensible method when you are undecided. Producing two outputs from the same source costs nothing extra, and you can put them side by side and compare both visual quality and file size concretely. The important thing is not to chain conversions through intermediate outputs; produce both versions directly from the original WEBP.

Convert WEBP to JPG or PNG? A Comparative Decision Guide

The decision comes down to two questions

You have decided you need to convert your WEBP file. Only one question remains: JPG or PNG? The decision looks complicated but in practice it reduces to two questions.

First question: does the image have transparent areas, and do you need to preserve them? If the answer is yes, the comparison ends here — PNG is the only option. The second question comes into play if transparency is not required: is the content a photograph, or is it a graphic containing text and sharp edges?

In this article we compare the two on transparency, file size, content fit and usage scenario.

Transparency: a structural and absolute difference

WEBP supports the alpha channel, meaning it can store a separate transparency value for every pixel. That is what allows a logo's curved edges to blend smoothly into the background, or a shadow to partially reveal the surface beneath it.

PNG has the same capability. The alpha channel has been part of PNG's design from the very beginning, and transition values from fully transparent to fully opaque can be stored for every pixel. So when you convert a transparent WEBP to PNG, transparency is preserved exactly.

In JPG there is no such component. The format was designed in the early 1990s to store photographs efficiently; a photograph does not have a background, the entire rectangular frame is filled. So transparency was never added to the format. When you convert a transparent WEBP to JPG, the transparent regions get filled with a solid color — usually white, sometimes black — and that operation cannot be undone. Converting to PNG afterwards does not erase the fill color; it merely stores that color losslessly.

File size: a balance that shifts with content

The common belief is that "PNG is always big," but that only holds for photographs.

On photographic content, JPG wins by a wide margin. In a landscape, a portrait or a product shot, almost every pixel differs from its neighbor. PNG's lossless compression finds no repetition to pack and the file balloons. The PNG version of the same photograph can reach several times the size of the WEBP original. JPG, on the other hand, was designed for exactly this content type and at a reasonable quality setting gives a result that is both small and visually sufficient.

On graphic and text content the gap closes, and sometimes reverses. Screenshots, interface designs, tables or flat-background logos contain large single-color areas. PNG packs these very efficiently. JPG on this content both looks worse — noise around text edges, halos at sharp transitions — and sometimes produces a larger file, because sharp edges strain JPG's compression logic.

In both cases, remember this: the source WEBP is already an efficiently compressed file. Whichever target you go to, the size will most likely increase. Going to PNG, that increase is far more pronounced on photographs.

Quality: the direction matters

WEBP to JPG: If the source was compressed lossily, this is a lossy-to-lossy transfer. The information discarded in the first compression is already gone, and the JPG save adds its own losses on top. At a high quality setting the difference is usually indistinguishable by eye, but it technically exists.

WEBP to PNG: PNG is lossless, so no additional loss occurs during the conversion. But there is a common misconception here: PNG does not bring quality back. If the source WEBP was lossy, the compression traces in it carry over into the PNG unchanged. PNG is not a repair tool but a freezer. The real benefit it provides is that no new loss occurs each time you save the file from here on.

Which one in which scenario

A photograph you downloaded from a website, to be moved into an older program: JPG. Photographic content, no transparency, wide compatibility needed. You can handle it in seconds with the WEBP to JPG converter.

A logo with a transparent background: PNG. There is no other option; JPG destroys transparency permanently.

A screenshot or documentation image: PNG. Text and interface edges stay sharp, and the noise JPG creates never appears.

A working file you will edit through multiple stages: PNG. No new loss occurs with each save. Only at the very end do you export the distribution version as JPG or WEBP.

A photograph to be sent as an email attachment: JPG. Both small and guaranteed to open on the other end.

A document image to be uploaded to a system: Check the format the system accepts. If it accepts both, choose PNG if the content is text-heavy and JPG if it is a photograph.

In summary

If transparency is required, there is no comparison — PNG is the only option. If transparency is not required, look at the content: for a photograph JPG is markedly more efficient, while for text- and graphic-heavy material PNG is both cleaner and small enough. The two formats are not rivals; they are tools designed for different jobs. In either direction, factor in that if the source WEBP is lossy the existing flaws will carry over, and that whichever target you go to, the file size will most likely increase.