Should We Switch from JPEG to WebP on Web Sites?

[Dirthmitore]

I have read that switching the images on our organizations web sites from JPEG to WebP is good for SEO.

And that the file sizes are smaller with WebP. And I can't see any difference between the two on side-by-side comparisons unless I zoom in. A lot. And then the WebP images seem to have less artifacting.

Is there any reason NOT to switch?

[Lumigraphics]

AVIF and HEIC are technically better formats than WebP. JPEG and PNG are the most widely supported.

[D Fosse]

Several specifications have been proposed to replace the rather troublesome jpeg format, but none of them ever seemed to get off the ground, including webp.

Here in Norway, newspapers and broadcasters all seem to have settled on AVIF.

[Nancy OShea]

I have read that switching the images on our organizations web sites from JPEG to WebP is good for SEO.

By @Dirthmitore

==========

Rubbish click bait.  File type has no direct impact on Search Engine Optimization. SEO is baked into your keyword rich text content and proper use of good semantic markup: <h1>, <h2>, <h3>, <p> <li>... tags.

The advantage of using lossless compression file types like WebP and AVIF are better performance without excessive bandwidth.  Users on limited data plans will appreciate the conservation of resources.  But the decision to use compressed files or not should be based on your needs and those of your target audience. 

According to Can I Use browser statistics:  WebP has 95% support from all modern browsers whereas AVIF has slightly less at 92%. 

See screenshots.

In the interest of fairness,  it should be noted that JPG XL and JPG 2000 have almost no browser support at this time. As such, they should not be used in production sites.

Hope that helps.