Progressive vs baseline JPEG

Two ways of ordering the same compressed data. One paints the image top to bottom; the other shows the whole thing immediately and sharpens it.

The comparison

Baseline
One top-to-bottom pass. Paints in like a blind being raised.
Progressive
Several passes of increasing detail. Whole image appears immediately, then sharpens.
File size
Progressive is typically 2–10% smaller above about 10 KB.
Below ~10 KB
Baseline is usually smaller — the extra pass headers cost more than they save.
Decode cost
Progressive is higher, which matters on low-powered devices with many images.
Browser support
Universal for both. This is not a compatibility decision.

Which to choose

The difference is ordering, not content

Both store the same compressed data with the same quantization and the same quality. What differs is the order it is written in.

A baseline JPEG stores the image as a single pass, block by block, left to right and top to bottom. A decoder receiving it can only draw what has arrived, which is why a slow-loading baseline image appears from the top down.

A progressive JPEG stores several passes over the whole image: the first carries only the coarsest information, and each subsequent one adds finer detail. A decoder can render a complete, blurry version as soon as the first pass arrives, then refine it.

Why progressive usually feels faster

The total bytes are nearly identical, so nothing is genuinely faster in the sense of finishing sooner. What changes is when something meaningful appears.

With a baseline image at 40% loaded, you have 40% of a picture and 60% empty space. With a progressive image at 40% loaded, you have the whole picture, slightly soft. For a photograph on a page someone is scrolling, the second is far more useful — the layout is complete and the content is recognisable.

This matters less than it used to on fast connections, where the whole file arrives in a fraction of a second either way. It still matters on poor mobile connections, which is where a good deal of real traffic lives.

The size difference, and its exception

Progressive encoding is usually slightly smaller — commonly 2–10% — because grouping similar coefficients across the whole image gives the entropy coder more to work with than processing blocks in spatial order does.

The exception is small files. Each pass carries its own headers, and on an image below roughly 10 KB that overhead outweighs the gain. For icons, thumbnails and tiny sprites, baseline produces the smaller file.

The honest recommendation, and what this site does

For photographs above about 10 KB on a web page, progressive is the better default: slightly smaller, and considerably better on a slow connection. For very small images, baseline.

This site does not let you choose, because a browser's canvas.toBlob gives no control over it — the encoder decides, and most browsers write baseline. A toggle here would be a control that does not affect the output, which is not something we are willing to ship. If you need progressive output specifically, a desktop encoder such as MozJPEG or ImageMagick exposes the option directly.

Try it yourself

Everything below runs in your browser, so you can test any of this on your own files without uploading them.

  • Compress JPEG

    Shrink JPG and JPEG photographs with a quality slider or an exact target size.

    Open the tool
  • Compress to 200KB

    Full resolution kept, quality still invisible to the eye.

    Open the tool
  • JPG to WebP

    Typically 25–35% smaller at matched quality. The standard web win.

    Open the tool
  • Resize image

    By pixels or percentage, aspect ratio locked, across a whole batch.

    Open the tool

Questions

Frequently asked questions

Every answer below is present in the page source, expanded, so it can be read without opening anything.

Can I make a progressive JPEG with this site?

No, and we would rather say so than pretend. Browser canvas encoders do not expose the choice, and most produce baseline. Adding a progressive toggle here would be a switch with no effect on the file you download. Use MozJPEG, ImageMagick or Photoshop's export options if you need it.

Is progressive JPEG actually smaller?

Usually, by a few per cent, for images above about 10 KB. Below that the per-pass overhead makes it larger, so baseline wins for thumbnails and icons.

Do all browsers support progressive JPEG?

Yes. Both encodings have been universally supported for decades — this is a choice about perceived loading behaviour, not about compatibility.

Does progressive affect image quality?

Not at all. The quantization is identical; only the order the data is written in changes. A progressive and a baseline JPEG at the same quality decode to the same pixels.

Is there an equivalent in PNG or WebP?

PNG has interlacing (Adam7), which works similarly but typically makes the file noticeably larger — it is rarely worth it. WebP has no progressive mode at all; it renders once, complete.

Does it matter for Core Web Vitals?

Indirectly. Largest Contentful Paint measures when the largest element is rendered, and browsers generally do not count a partial progressive pass. The bigger win for LCP is simply serving fewer bytes — resize first, then compress.

From the blog

Related reading

Longer, more practical guides from the blog.

  • Image Compression

    JPEG Quality Settings Explained: What the Number Actually Means

    Quality 80 is not 80% of anything. It is an index into a quantisation table. Measured on one photograph: dropping from 100 to 90 removes 77% of the file and 4.2 dB of fidelity; dropping from 40 to 30 removes 17% and costs almost as much.

    8 min read

  • Practical Guides

    How to Compress Images for a Website Without Wrecking Them

    Resize before you compress. Measured on one photograph: half the width at quality 80 produced a 16.4 KB file, while full width at quality 40 produced 20.6 KB and looked far worse. The order of operations matters more than the settings.

    8 min read

  • Image Formats

    WebP vs JPEG: Which Should You Use, and When JPEG Still Wins

    WebP produced a 27.0 KB file against MozJPEG's 41.1 KB on the same photograph at slightly higher measured fidelity — 34% smaller. It also produced a larger file than JPEG on random noise. The advantage is real and content-dependent.

    9 min read