● Covered by 1 source · 1 reportMedium impact1 neutral
AVIF generally outperforms JPEG XL for web image compression across various use cases
Key points
- AVIF files are 6-25% smaller than JPEG XL for lossy photos.
- AVIF is 20-90% smaller than JPEG XL for screenshots/illustrations.
- AVIF is 31-70% smaller than JPEG XL for images with transparency.
- AVIF generally decodes faster than JPEG XL.
Lossy Photo Compression
For lossy photographic images on the web, AVIF consistently generates smaller files than JPEG XL. At default encoding settings, JPEG XL files are typically 15–25% larger than equivalent AVIF files. When both formats are encoded with maximum effort settings, the size difference narrows to 6–20%, though AVIF still maintains an advantage. Some outliers exist where JPEG XL can match or slightly surpass AVIF in file size for specific images.
Screenshots and Illustrations
AVIF demonstrates superior performance for screenshots and illustrations. JPEG XL files are 30–90% larger at default effort settings and 20–70% larger at maximum effort settings compared to AVIF. Lossy AVIF effectively handles these image types, often negating the need for lossless formats unless bit-exact reproduction is critical.
Images with Transparency
For images containing transparency, AVIF significantly outperforms JPEG XL. The libjxl encoder produces files that are 31–44% larger at default settings and 61–70% larger at maximum settings than AVIF. The jixel encoder for JPEG XL always encodes transparency losslessly, resulting in files 2–3 times larger than AVIF's.
Encoding and Decoding Performance
AVIF generally offers faster encoding and uses less memory when file size is considered. While the jixel JPEG XL encoder is faster and uses less memory than AVIF, its resulting files are typically larger, making AVIF a more balanced choice. AVIF also decodes faster; JPEG XL typically takes 2–3 times longer to decode at medium quality, though this gap can decrease at very high qualities in some browsers like Chrome.
Encoder Effort Settings
Applying higher effort settings is beneficial for AVIF and the jixel JPEG XL encoder, yielding better results. However, for the libjxl encoder, higher effort settings are often counterproductive. They significantly increase encoding time and memory usage with minimal or no improvement in file size, and can sometimes even result in larger files than default settings.
✨ This summary was generated by AI from the outlets' reporting listed below. It is not independently verified and may contain errors — check the original sources. How BrevFeed works →
The daily brief
One email each morning: the day's tech stories, clustered across outlets and summarized. No account needed.
One email a day. Unsubscribe in one click, any time.
Today's brief
Spend a few minutes, get the whole day. Every topic's top stories in one hands-free rundown — listen, watch, or read the transcript.
▶ Play today's brief
New every morning, and the back catalogue is archived by date.
Primary sources
GitHub awxkee/jixel GitHub libjxl/libjxl GitHub jakearchibald/image-codec-bench GitHub aomediacodec/libavif GitHub cloudinary/ssimulacra2 GitHub gfxdisp/colorvideovdpReporting from
AVIF typically produces smaller file sizes than JPEG XL for lossy photos, screenshots, illustrations, and images with transparency. While JPEG XL has landed in major browsers, AVIF generally offers better compression and faster decoding for web use cases. The choice of JPEG XL encoder also significantly impacts file size, with jixel often outperforming libjxl.