Technical

Image Compressor

Make an image smaller without visibly changing it

In build

Drop in a PNG, JPEG or WebP and get a compressed file back with the before and after byte size, the percentage saved, the quality setting used, and a side-by-side view at full resolution so you can judge what the compression cost.

Get early access

What it returns

The compressed file, with the original and final size in bytes, the percentage saved, and the encoder settings that produced it.
A full-resolution comparison with a slider, because a thumbnail hides exactly the artefacts you need to see before you accept the saving.
The same source re-encoded as WebP and AVIF next to the original format, with the size of each, so the format decision is made on numbers.
What was stripped: EXIF, GPS coordinates, colour profiles and thumbnails, listed, since removing a colour profile changes how the image renders.

When this matters

A site audit flags a hero image as the largest contentful paint element and the file is 2.4 MB, exported straight from a design tool at twice the width it is ever displayed at. Half the fix is resizing it to the dimensions the layout actually uses, which no compressor can decide for you. The other half is choosing a quality level, looking at the result at full size, and seeing whether the sky has banded.

How to answer this today

Site audit finds the images worth compressing, which is the harder half of the job: it crawls the site, reports the pages carrying heavy image payloads, and flags the ones where an image is the largest element on screen. It does not re-encode files for you, and a single image dropped into a browser tab is a faster round trip than a crawl, so the two fit together.

Site audit

Why this is harder than it looks

Lossy and lossless are different promises

PNG optimisation reduces size with pixel-identical output. JPEG, WebP and AVIF at a quality setting discard information permanently, and re-encoding an already-compressed JPEG compounds the loss. Which one happened has to be stated per file.

Quality numbers are not comparable

Quality 80 in one encoder is not quality 80 in another, and the same setting behaves differently on a photograph, a screenshot and a flat illustration. The only reliable check is looking at the output, which is why the comparison view matters more than the number.

Resizing usually beats compressing

A 4,000 pixel wide image displayed at 800 is mostly waste that no encoder can recover. The largest saving is almost always serving the dimensions the layout uses, and compression applied after that is the smaller win.

Metadata removal has consequences

Stripping EXIF removes GPS and camera data, which is usually what you want, and also removes orientation flags and ICC colour profiles. Drop those silently and an image rotates or shifts colour on some devices and not others.