title: JPG vs compressed JPG vs WEBP - why WEBP isn't the smallest one?
body: <p>I have this image (photo taken by me on SGS 9 plus): <a href="https://imgur.com/a/FpoasCE" rel="noreferrer" title="Uncompressed JPG image">Uncompressed JPG image</a>. Its size is 4032 x 3024 and its weight is <strong>around 3MB</strong>. I compressed it with <a href="https://tinyjpg.com/" rel="noreferrer" title="TinyJPG Compressor">TinyJPG Compressor</a> and its weight was <strong>1.3MB</strong>. For PNG images I used <a href="https://image.online-convert.com/convert-to-webp" rel="noreferrer" title="Online-Convert">Online-Convert</a> and I saw webp images much more smaller even than compressed with <a href="https://tinypng.com/" rel="noreferrer" title="TinyPNG">TinyPNG</a>. I expected something similar, especially that I read an article <a href="https://optimus.keycdn.com/support/jpg-to-webp/" rel="noreferrer" title="JPG to WebP – Comparing Compression Sizes">JPG to WebP – Comparing Compression Sizes</a> where WEBP is much smaller that compressed JPG. 
  But when I convert my JPG to WEBP format in various online image convertion tools, I see <strong>1.5-2MB</strong> size, so file is bigger than my compressed JPG. Am I missing something? WEBP should not be much smaller than compressed JPG? Thank you in advance for every answer.</p>