JPEG VS JPG
The ultimate comparison guide. Understanding the technical differences between Joint Photographic Experts Group and Joint Photographic Experts Group.
JPEG
jpegAlternative extension for JPG images, widely supported across all browsers.
Pros
- Small file size
- Universal compatibility
- Adjustable compression levels
Cons
- Lossy compression
- No transparency
- Artifacts at high compression
JPG
jpgUniversal image format with lossy compression, perfect for photography.
Pros
- Small file size
- Universal compatibility
- Adjustable compression levels
Cons
- Lossy compression (quality degrades)
- No transparency support
- No animation
When JPEG wins
Stay with JPEG when you need web images or digital photography. Its strengths center on small file size and a feature set native to Joint Photographic Experts Group.
When JPG wins
Choose JPG when your workflow prioritizes web images or digital photography. It delivers small file size plus modern compression perks.
Technical Specifications
| Feature | JPEG | JPG |
|---|---|---|
| MIME Type | image/jpeg | image/jpeg |
| Developer | Joint Photographic Experts Group | Joint Photographic Experts Group |
| Release Year | 1992 | 1992 |
| Best For | Web images, Digital photography | Web images, Digital photography, Email attachments |
Need to switch?
Where JPEG still wins
Keep JPEG when you need small file size and workflows depend on web images / digital photography. Link those teams directly to the converter above so they can ship JPG deliverables without leaving their browser.
- • Reference the .jpeg glossary from this page.
- • Embed the conversion CTA in docs, wikis, and onboarding runbooks.
- • Use JPG for web images while archiving originals as JPEG.
Keep crawlers in the conversion hub
Link this comparison to the relevant tool, glossary, and documentation pages so every crawl discovers a monetizable route.