JPG VS JPEG
The ultimate comparison guide. Understanding the technical differences between Joint Photographic Experts Group and Joint Photographic Experts Group.
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
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
When JPG wins
Stay with JPG 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 JPEG wins
Choose JPEG when your workflow prioritizes web images or digital photography. It delivers small file size plus modern compression perks.
Technical Specifications
| Feature | JPG | JPEG |
|---|---|---|
| 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, Email attachments | Web images, Digital photography |
Need to switch?
Where JPG still wins
Keep JPG 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 JPEG deliverables without leaving their browser.
- • Reference the .jpg glossary from this page.
- • Embed the conversion CTA in docs, wikis, and onboarding runbooks.
- • Use JPEG for web images while archiving originals as JPG.
Keep crawlers in the conversion hub
Link this comparison to the relevant tool, glossary, and documentation pages so every crawl discovers a monetizable route.