ComparisonApril 15, 20265 min read

GIF vs WebP – which is better for animations?

GIF has been the web's standard for animations since the 90s, but it's technically stuck in the stone age. WebP can also animate — with millions of colours instead of 256, and at significantly smaller file sizes. Is the switch worth it?

Why GIF is technically prehistoric

GIF dates back to 1987 and was never designed for modern image needs. It tops out at 256 colours per frame, has no real alpha (only on/off pixel transparency), and uses inefficient compression.

Result: even short animations balloon into multi-megabyte territory. On mobile connections that's a real performance hit, and social feeds quietly demote heavy GIFs in their reach algorithms.

What animated WebP does better

WebP supports animated sequences just like GIF, but with full 24-bit colour depth, alpha transparency and modern compression. An animated WebP averages 30–60% smaller than a quality-equivalent GIF.

Browser support has been there for years (Chrome, Firefox, Edge, Safari, Opera). Platforms such as Twitter/X, Discord and Slack accept WebP animations directly, and WhatsApp uses them as stickers.

When GIF still has its place

GIF remains the lifeline for platforms that don't yet allow animated WebP, and for email newsletters where many clients render no animations other than GIF. Some CMS editors also still handle GIF drag-and-drop better.

Recommendation: on the web, replace GIFs with WebP animations (or better yet a short video). For email and legacy platforms keep GIF — or fall back to a compact still image.

What about stickers, stories and memes?

WhatsApp stickers are animated WebPs under the hood — that's how they stay small and smooth on older phones. Telegram uses its own TGS (Lottie-based) format, Instagram Stories render internally as short videos.

Building a meme? Reddit, Twitter/X and Discord eat both GIF and WebP. Mastodon takes only GIF and short MP4. Tip: build a WebP in Pixshift, then convert to MP4 in two clicks for Mastodon.