PNG vs JPG is the oldest format question on the web, and the answer hasn't changed because the underlying math hasn't: they compress images in fundamentally different ways, and each is dramatically better at a specific kind of image.
The short version — JPG for photographs, PNG for anything with sharp edges, text, or transparency. The long version below explains why, covers the cases people get wrong, and shows what it costs when you pick badly.
The core difference: lossy vs lossless
JPG (JPEG, 1992) uses lossy compression: it divides the image into 8×8 pixel blocks and permanently discards fine detail the human eye is least sensitive to. This works brilliantly for photographs, where colors shift gradually and a little discarded detail is invisible — a photo can shrink to a tenth of its raw size and still look perfect.
PNG (1996) uses lossless DEFLATE compression — the same family as ZIP. Every pixel is preserved exactly, no matter how many times you open and re-save the file. PNG compresses by finding repetition: large areas of flat color and repeated patterns shrink extremely well, but the noisy, always-changing pixels of a photograph barely compress at all.
The failure modes are mirror images
Save a screenshot with text as JPG and you get fuzzy 'mosquito noise' halos around every letter. Save a photograph as PNG and you get a file 5–10× larger than the equivalent JPG with no visible benefit. Each format fails exactly where the other succeeds.
When PNG wins
- Screenshots — especially of interfaces, code, or anything containing text. JPEG artifacts make text visibly fuzzy.
- Logos, icons, and line art — sharp edges and flat colors are exactly what lossless compression preserves and JPEG destroys.
- Anything needing transparency — PNG's alpha channel supports full partial transparency; JPG has none at all. A logo on a transparent background must be PNG (or WebP/SVG).
- Images that will be edited repeatedly — PNG survives unlimited open-edit-save cycles with zero degradation. JPG loses a little quality on every save (generation loss).
- Charts, diagrams, and data visualizations — flat colors, sharp lines, embedded labels.
PNG also comes in two main flavors worth knowing: PNG-24 stores full 16.7-million-color images, while PNG-8 is limited to a 256-color palette but produces much smaller files — often ideal for simple icons and flat graphics.
When JPG wins
- Photographs of any kind — people, landscapes, products, food. At quality 80–90, a JPG is visually identical to the source and a fraction of the PNG size.
- Email attachments and messaging — a phone photo saved as PNG can exceed 20 MB and bounce off attachment limits; the same image as JPG is 2–4 MB.
- Web pages with photographic content — smaller files mean faster loads and better Core Web Vitals.
- Anywhere storage or bandwidth is constrained — the size difference on photos is not subtle; it's typically 5–10×.
| Format | Approximate size | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| JPG (quality 85) | 2–4 MB | Visually indistinguishable from original |
| JPG (quality 60) | 1–2 MB | Minor artifacts in detailed areas |
| PNG-24 | 15–25 MB | Pixel-perfect but no visible advantage for photos |
| HEIC (iPhone default) | 1–2 MB | Smaller than JPG, poor compatibility |
The mistakes people actually make
Three misuses account for most of the pain:
- Uploading PNG photos to a website. The page loads slowly for no visual benefit. Convert photographic PNGs to JPG (or better, WebP) before publishing.
- Saving text-heavy screenshots as JPG. Documentation and bug-report screenshots become blurry and unprofessional. Use PNG.
- Re-saving a JPG as PNG expecting quality to come back. Lossless wrapping of already-lost data just makes a big file — the discarded detail is gone forever. Always convert from the highest-quality original you have.
The modern third option
For the web specifically, WebP beats both: it compresses photos ~25–34% smaller than JPG and supports transparency like PNG. If your images live on a website you control, see our WebP vs JPG guide. For files you share with other people, JPG and PNG remain the safe universal answers.
How to convert between PNG and JPG
Every OS can do single-file conversions: macOS Preview (File → Export), Windows Paint (Save As), or any image editor. For batches, or when you want quality control without installing anything:
- 1
Open the FileMorf converter
The image tab converts PNG, JPG, WebP, and HEIC directly in your browser — no signup, and files never leave your device.
- 2
Drop in your images and choose the target format
Converting PNG to JPG lets you set a quality level; converting JPG to PNG preserves exactly what's there.
- 3
Download the results
Single files download directly; batches bundle into a ZIP.
One caveat when going PNG to JPG: transparency is flattened, because JPG can't represent it. Transparent regions are filled with a background color — if you need the transparency, stay with PNG or use WebP.
Convert PNG, JPG & more free
Browser-based image conversion with quality control. No uploads, no signup — files stay on your device.
Frequently asked questions
Is PNG higher quality than JPG?
PNG is lossless, so it's a perfect copy of the source — in that sense yes. But for photographs, a high-quality JPG is visually identical at a fraction of the size, so 'higher quality' rarely means 'better choice'. For graphics, text, and screenshots, PNG is genuinely and visibly better.
Why is my PNG so much bigger than the same image as JPG?
PNG stores every pixel exactly. Photographic images have essentially no repeated patterns for lossless compression to exploit, so the file stays huge. JPG discards imperceptible detail instead, which is why it shrinks photos 5–10× further.
Does converting JPG to PNG improve the image?
No. Detail discarded by JPEG compression is permanently gone. Converting to PNG just stores the already-degraded image losslessly, producing a much larger file that looks identical.
Which format should I use for a logo with a transparent background?
PNG (or SVG if you have a vector original, or WebP for web use). JPG cannot store transparency at all — converting a transparent PNG to JPG fills the background with a solid color.
Keep Reading
WebP vs JPG: Which Should You Use?
WebP files are typically 25–34% smaller than JPEGs at the same quality — but JPG still wins in some situations. A practical comparison with a decision table.
Read the guideAVIF vs WebP: The Modern Image Format Showdown
AVIF compresses harder; WebP encodes faster and is supported everywhere. A practical, benchmark-informed comparison for choosing your next-gen image format.
Read the guideHow to Reduce Image File Size for Email and the Web
Photos too big to email or slowing down your site? Learn the two levers that actually shrink images — resizing and compression — and the settings that keep them looking good.
Read the guide