Astro image format compare
Published on: 2025-09-04
Astro image format compare
Written by: Krix Daniel
Published on: 2025-09-04
Astro image format compare
Written by: Krix Daniel
Reading time: 2 min read
View count:
Using component Image from astro:assets
Source:
| Format type | Size | Time |
|---|---|---|
| JPG | 36.6kb | ~500ms |
| JPEG | 36.6kb | ~500ms |
| PNG | 360kb | ~4.6s |
| AVIF | 7.3kb | ~500ms |
| WEBP | 25.8kb | ~450ms |
Source:
| Format type | Size | Time |
|---|---|---|
| JPG | 225kb | ~2.11s |
| JPEG | 255kb | ~2.11s |
| PNG | 2.3mb | ~16.15s |
| AVIF | 51.6kb | ~4.3s |
| WEBP | 119kb | ~1.6s |
| Format type | Pros | Cons | When |
|---|---|---|---|
| ==JPG/JPEG== | - Widely supported - Small file size for photos - Adjustable compression | - Lossy compression (quality loss) - No transparency support | - Photographic content - Thumbnails, hero images where transparency isn’t needed |
| ==PNG== | - Lossless compression - Supports transparency (alpha channel) - Good quality | - Larger file size compared to JPG - Not ideal for large photos | - Icons, logos, UI elements - Images requiring transparency or sharp edges |
| ==AVIF== | - Very high compression (better than WebP/JPG) - Excellent quality - Supports transparency and HDR | - Limited browser support (improving) - Slower encoding - Reduce detail color (could optimize this, check unplash) | - When you want best quality at smallest size - Progressive enhancement (fallback to WebP/PNG) |
| ==WEBP== | - Better compression than JPG/PNG - Supports transparency & animation - Widely supported by modern browsers | - Not supported in older browsers - Encoding might be slower than JPG/PNG | - Optimized images for modern web - Replace JPG/PNG for better performance |
| ==SVG== | - Vector (resolution-independent) - Small file size for simple graphics - Animatable and stylable with CSS/JS | - Not ideal for complex images/photos - Can be security risk if not sanitized | - Icons, logos, illustrations - When you need scalability and interactivity |
| Format type | Pros | Cons | When |
|---|---|---|---|
| ==GIF== | - Widely supported - Supports animation - Simple transparency (1-bit) | - Only 256 colors (poor for photos) - Large file sizes - Outdated for animations | - Simple animations (fallback only) - Small animated UI elements if no other format is possible (Use WebP or Lottie instead when possible) |
| ==TIFF== | - High quality (lossless) - Supports layers, transparency, multiple pages - Great for professional imaging | - ==Not supported== in browsers - Very large file sizes - Not optimized for web | - ==Do not use for web display== - Best for image archival, printing, or backend processing only |