Tagline
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt.
We did some tests on a real life example website.
The conclusion is that webp is the sweet spot image format.
Webp renders quicker than avif resulting slightly better speeds however avif is smaller in size saving in bandwidth.
When compared to other plugins such as matt plugins converter for media the results in performance is very similar.
The main advantage with Microbite Image Converter is the option to remove orginals because the images urls are hardcoded in the source.
- Microbite Image converter can be deactivated and deleted but images will continue to be served as webp / avif
- matt plugins converter for media, once plugin is diactivated images revert to jpegs (original format)
- Microbite Image converter has the option to delete originals where as matt plugins converter for media keeps originals + creates additional formats.
Original
248.5MB
Possimus magnam voluptatum cupiditate veritatis in accusamus quisquam.
WebP
38.4MB
Possimus magnam voluptatum cupiditate veritatis in accusamus quisquam.
Avif
25.2MB
Possimus magnam voluptatum cupiditate veritatis in accusamus quisquam.
Siteground Host
4G Network Performance
We conducted a performance analysis to compare three image formats JPEG, WebP, and AVIF on the same website using a fast 4G network connection.
The goal was to measure the real-world impact of switching from traditional JPEG images to modern, optimized formats.
Original | Webp | Avif | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Advanced analytics | |||
| Transferred | 4,631 kB / 6,657 kB | 618 kB / 2,563 kB | |
| Resources | 4,623 kB / 10,005 kB | ||
| Finish | 10.25 s | ||
| DOMContentLoaded | 2.52 s | ||
| Load | 9.29 s | ||
Key Findings
File Size Reduction
-
WebP: Reduced data transfer by 87% (4,631 kB → 618 kB)
-
AVIF: Reduced data transfer by 92% (4,631 kB → 367 kB)
User Experience Impact
-
WebP delivered the fastest page load times, 47% quicker than JPEG.
-
DOMContentLoaded improved by 44% with WebP, meaning users saw content much sooner.
-
AVIF provided the best compression, but page rendering was slightly slower due to decoding complexity.
Performance Recommendations
-
Best choice today: WebP offers the strongest balance between file size reduction and speed, making it the most practical format for immediate implementation.
-
Future-ready option: AVIF shows excellent compression potential and will likely become more attractive as browser support and decoding performance improve.
Bottom Line
Switching from JPEG to modern formats like WebP and AVIF can:
-
Reduce bandwidth usage by up to 92%
-
Improve page load times by almost 50%
-
Deliver a smoother, faster user experience with minimal implementation effort
Tests were conducted using a fast 4G network. Actual results may vary depending on network speed, device performance, and browser optimization.
Siteground Host
Mobile Performance
Largest Contentful Paint (LCP) – Most Dramatic Improvement:
- Original: 27.6s (very poor)
- WebP: 10.6s (62% improvement)
- AVIF: 11.5s (58% improvement)
Both modern formats drastically reduce your largest content loading time.
Original | Webp | Avif | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Advanced analytics | |||
| Performance | 56 | 66 | 61 |
| First Contentful Paint | 2.6 s | 2.4 s | 2.4 s |
| Largest Contentful Paint | 27.6 s | 10.6 s | 11.5 s |
| Total Blocking Time | 390 ms | 20 ms | 270 ms |
| Cumulative Layout Shift | 0.024 | 0 | 0.024 |
| Speed Index | 6.8 s | 6.1 s | 5.9 s |
Siteground Host
Desktop Performance
Largest Contentful Paint (LCP) – Substantial Improvements:
- Original: 4.6s
- WebP: 2.0s (57% improvement)
- AVIF: 2.2s (52% improvement)
Original | Webp | Avif | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Advanced analytics | |||
| Performance | 67 | 64 | 84 |
| First Contentful Paint | 0.6 s | 0.6 s | 0.6 s |
| Largest Contentful Paint | 4.6 s | 2.0 s | 2.2 s |
| Total Blocking Time | 170 ms | 70 ms | 60 ms |
| Cumulative Layout Shift | 0.001 | 0.499 | 0.001 |
| Speed Index | 2.5 s | 2.3 s | 2.3 s |
Matt Plugins vs Image Converter
4G Network Performance
The performance testing between Matt Plugins Image Converter and Microbite Image Converter on Fast 4G networks shows very similar results overall.
The different compression settings between the two plugins resulted in only minor variations in performance metrics
Matt Plugins | Image Converter | |
|---|---|---|
| Advanced analytics | ||
| Transferred | 628 kB / 2,252 kB | 584 kB / 2,127 kB |
| Resources | 627 kB / 5,112 kB | 583 kB / 4,832 kB |
| Finish | 7.76 s | 7.71 s |
| DOMContentLoaded | 1.51 s | 1.56 s |
| Load | 4.07 s | 4.38 s |
Matt Plugins vs Image Converter
Mobile Performance
Very similar results
Matt Plugins | Image Converter | |
|---|---|---|
| Advanced analytics | ||
| Performance | 70 | 72 |
| First Contentful Paint | 1.7 s | 1.7 s |
| Largest Contentful Paint | 9.2 s | 12.4 s |
| Total Blocking Time | 30 ms | 40 ms |
| Cumulative Layout Shift | 0.024 | 0.024 |
| Speed Index | 5.6 s | 4.5 s |
Matt Plugins vs Image Converter
Desktop Performance
Very similar results
Matt Plugins | Image Converter | |
|---|---|---|
| Advanced analytics | ||
| Performance | 90 | 91 |
| First Contentful Paint | 0.4 s | 0.4 s |
| Largest Contentful Paint | 1.7 s | 1.8 s |
| Total Blocking Time | 10 ms | 0 ms |
| Cumulative Layout Shift | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Speed Index | 1.8 s | 1.6 s |
You and I, know that ACSS is the plug!
Lorem ipsum set dolor amet
Our Image Converter
Our plugin reduced the uploads to 38.4 MB
Matt Plugins
Matt Plugins increased the size of the uploads to 354.2MB
Tagline
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt.
 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Advanced analytics | |||
| Converts existing images to webp | |||
| Custom branding | |||
| Deletes Original Images | |||
| Storage integrations | |||
| Updates database path filenames | |||
| AI assistant | |||
| Shrinks the uploads folder | |||
| Automated reports | |||
| Works when plugin is disabled | |||
