> AVIF tends to outperform JXL in most web use-cases Matches my experience pretty well. AVIF can look quite good (for web purposes) at very low bitrates, while

> AVIF tends to outperform JXL in most web use-cases Matches my experience pretty well. AVIF can look quite good (for web purposes) at very low bitrates, while JXL falls apart. (JXL actually has two different modes of operation - modular mode is better at lower bitrates, but it's not considered to be JXL's main mode of operation.) JPEG-XL seems to be designed to replace JPEG for high quality photographic images, and in my experience it's fantastic at this. I see much better results at higher bitrates (compared to AVIF), and JXL can also losslessly compress JPEGs to a smaller size. There's a comparison between AVIF and JPEG-XL here https://afontenot.github.io/image-formats-comparison https://afontenot.github.io/image-formats-comparison although JPEG-XL is rather fast moving target at the moment and the comparison hasn't been updated in quite a few months.