A bit of a weird way to structure this kind of article. Why spend multiple pages comparing different formats by compression % / "Quality Setting" and only after 6 graphs start saying "oh by the way at 40% the AVIF image is 3x smaller than JPG".

Only the last two charts in this article actually contain interesting information, the others are just comparing arbitrary numbers with each other (how each codec defines it's 0-100 "Quality Setting")

Also JPEG-XL is kinda missing which is the main competitor of AVIF.

JPEG-XL, AVIF and HEIF.

These are the only three that should be compared in terms of next gen Image codec comparison.

Found via the great stumbleupon-like https://kagi.com/smallweb/ which feels like the good parts of an early-2000s web.

Via https://blog.kagi.com/small-web "Kagi Small Web offers a fresh approach by promoting recently published content from the “small web.” We gather new content, published within the last week, from a handpicked list of blogs and surface it in multiple ways"

I would like to see PNG become the main format first

PNG for photos produce very very large files.

I was rooting for FLIF. I think JPEG XL is the current living successor, with a much worse name. (It's not even clear it can be lossless)