Format Analysis
What Are the Disadvantages of Using WebP?
Updated: March 2026
WebP is frequently praised for its superior compression and flexibility, but no format is perfect. While WebP has become the go-to recommendation for web images, it comes with real drawbacks that can cause headaches for designers, developers, and everyday users. This article provides an honest, balanced analysis of every significant disadvantage of WebP, including the severity of each issue and practical workarounds you can use. Understanding these limitations will help you make informed decisions about when WebP is the right choice and when sticking with JPG or PNG makes more sense.
1. Limited Software and Editor Support
One of the most frustrating disadvantages of WebP is that many popular image editors and software tools still do not natively support it. While Adobe Photoshop added WebP support in version 23.2 (February 2022), older versions require third-party plugins. Many lightweight image viewers on Windows, particularly the default Windows Photo Viewer on older systems, cannot open WebP files at all. GIMP supports WebP, but other popular editors like some versions of Paint.NET, Affinity Photo, and CorelDRAW have been slower to add full support.
Severity: Medium
Workaround: Convert WebP to PNG or JPG before editing. Most modern software (2024+) now supports WebP, so this issue is diminishing over time. Our free converter makes it easy to switch between formats instantly.
2. Older Browser Compatibility
Internet Explorer 11 never supported WebP, and it was not until Safari 14 (released September 2020) that Apple devices gained WebP support. This means websites that serve WebP exclusively will show broken images for users on legacy systems. While global WebP browser support now exceeds 97%, that remaining percentage can represent significant traffic for certain audiences. Enterprise environments, government agencies, and users in developing regions may still use older browsers that cannot display WebP images.
Severity: Low (decreasing yearly)
Workaround: Use the HTML <picture> element to serve WebP with a JPG or PNG fallback. This ensures all users see images regardless of browser version. Most CDNs and image optimization services handle this automatically.
3. Harder to Edit Than JPG or PNG
Even when software does support WebP, the editing experience is often less polished than with JPG or PNG. Preview thumbnails may not generate correctly in file managers. Drag-and-drop functionality into certain applications may not work. Some batch processing tools and command-line utilities do not recognize WebP. For designers who frequently need to make quick edits, this friction adds up. The file format is also more complex internally than PNG, meaning fewer tools can manipulate WebP files at a low level, and debugging image issues can be more difficult.
Severity: Medium
Workaround: Keep original source files in PNG or PSD format and only convert to WebP as a final export step for web delivery. This preserves your editing workflow while still benefiting from WebP's compression for end users.
4. Unsuitable for Print Workflows
WebP was designed specifically for web use, and it shows. The format does not support CMYK color mode, which is essential for professional print production. Print shops, magazine publishers, and packaging designers cannot use WebP files in their workflows. Additionally, WebP does not support embedded ICC color profiles as robustly as TIFF or PNG, which can lead to color inconsistencies when images cross between screen and print. If your images need to serve both web and print purposes, maintaining a WebP-only library creates extra conversion steps.
Severity: High (for print professionals)
Workaround: Maintain source files in TIFF or PNG for print, and generate WebP versions only for web delivery. Use a dual-format asset management system if you serve both channels.
5. Metadata Limitations and CMS Compatibility
WebP supports EXIF and XMP metadata, but support is inconsistent across tools. Some image management software strips or fails to read metadata from WebP files. Photographers who rely on embedded GPS coordinates, camera settings, and copyright information may find that this data is lost or corrupted during WebP conversion. Additionally, some content management systems like older versions of WordPress (pre-5.8) did not allow WebP uploads by default, requiring plugins or manual configuration. While WordPress 5.8+ added native WebP support, many other CMS platforms, email builders, and website builders still have incomplete WebP integration.
Severity: Medium
Workaround: Verify metadata preservation after conversion. For CMS issues, check your platform's documentation for WebP support status and use plugins if needed. Store metadata separately if it is critical to your workflow.
6. Poor Email Client Support
Email marketing is one area where WebP is essentially unusable. Major email clients including Outlook (desktop versions), older Gmail rendering, and many corporate email systems do not reliably display WebP images. Unlike web browsers where the <picture>element allows fallbacks, HTML email has much more limited markup support, making it difficult to implement format negotiation. If you embed WebP images in marketing emails or newsletters, a significant portion of your audience may see broken image icons instead of your carefully designed content.
Severity: High (for email marketing)
Workaround: Always use JPG or PNG for email images. There is no reliable way to serve WebP in emails with proper fallbacks. Convert your WebP assets to JPG before including them in email campaigns.
Disadvantages vs Advantages: The Full Picture
| Factor | WebP Advantage | WebP Disadvantage |
|---|---|---|
| File Size | 25-35% smaller than JPG | - |
| Software Support | Major browsers (97%+) | Many editors lack support |
| Editing | - | Harder to edit than JPG/PNG |
| - | No CMYK, poor for print | |
| - | Unreliable in email clients | |
| Features | Lossy + lossless + animation | Max 8-bit per channel |
| Web Performance | Faster page loads, better SEO | Needs fallback strategy |
| Metadata | EXIF/XMP supported | Inconsistent across tools |
When You Should Avoid WebP
Based on the disadvantages outlined above, here are the specific scenarios where you should choose a different format:
- Email campaigns: Use JPG for photographs and PNG for graphics with transparency
- Print production: Use TIFF or PNG with CMYK color profiles
- Long-term archival: Use PNG or TIFF for maximum future compatibility
- When recipients need to edit: Send JPG or PNG files that open in any software
- Legacy system integration: If your CMS or workflow tools do not support WebP
When These Disadvantages Don't Matter
For many common use cases, WebP's disadvantages are either irrelevant or easily mitigated. If your primary goal is serving images on a modern website, WebP's disadvantages largely disappear. Browser support is above 97%, your users will never need to edit the images, print is not a concern, and email is handled separately. E-commerce sites, blogs, portfolios, and web applications all benefit significantly from WebP's smaller file sizes without encountering most of the drawbacks listed above. The key is matching your format choice to your specific delivery channel and audience.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Is WebP still worth using despite its disadvantages?
A: Yes, for web delivery, WebP's advantages significantly outweigh its disadvantages. The 25-35% file size savings improve page speed, reduce bandwidth costs, and boost SEO. Most disadvantages only apply to non-web use cases like print, email, and legacy software editing.
Q: What is the biggest drawback of WebP?
A: The biggest practical drawback is limited software editing support. While browsers handle WebP well, many desktop applications and workflows still treat it as a second-class format. This forces users to convert WebP files before they can edit them, adding extra steps to creative workflows.
Q: Will WebP's disadvantages go away over time?
A: Many of them are already diminishing. Browser support is now above 97%, major editors like Photoshop support WebP natively, and more CMS platforms add WebP support every year. However, the print limitation (no CMYK) and email compatibility issues are unlikely to change, as WebP was designed specifically for web use.
Need to convert WebP to a more compatible format?
Convert WebP to JPG Free