Compress image to 200 KB

Squeeze a JPG, PNG, WebP or HEIC under 200 KB in your browser.

Make images or PDFs smaller.

or drop them here HEIC, JPG, PNG, WebP, AVIF, GIF, BMP, SVG and ICO, and PDFs or paste with Ctrl+V
    PDF
    JPG · PNG · WebP · Text · Word
    Word
    PDF · Text
    Convert to

    Your files are processed by your own browser and never sent to a server.

    Where 200 KB comes from

    Where job application forms, CV attachments and internal document systems cluster, and the point at which a limit stops being about storage and starts being about how long a page takes to load on a phone. It is the most forgiving number in common use that anyone bothers to enforce.

    What 200 KB costs you

    Very little, for a picture that is already a sensible size on screen. Most photographs reach 200 KB without ever needing to be scaled, so the dimensions you started with are the dimensions you keep. Where the loss shows first is not in detail but in flat areas: a clear sky or a plain studio backdrop can pick up faint banding where a smooth gradient used to be.

    What each format does at 200 KB

    At 200 KB most photographs survive without being resized at all, so the format choice is about how the budget gets spent rather than whether the picture fits. Auto compares them and keeps the best result; overrule it only when something downstream cares:

    More on what compression actually throws away.

    Questions about 200 KB

    Is 200 KB enough for a web page photograph?

    Yes, comfortably, for anything that is not a full-width hero image. 200 KB buys a good-looking photograph at around 1200 pixels wide as a JPEG, and more as WebP. It is a sensible default budget for article images and product shots, and it is well inside the range where nobody looking at the page would guess it had been compressed at all.

    Should I resize first or compress first?

    Resize first, every time. Compressing a 4000-pixel image down to 200 KB forces the encoder to destroy detail across an enormous number of pixels, and the result is mushy. Resizing it to the width it will actually be displayed at and then compressing gives you the same 200 KB spent on far fewer pixels, which looks dramatically better. The tool does this automatically when it has to, but doing it deliberately gives a better result.

    Why did two similar photos come out at very different sizes?

    Because compressibility follows detail, not subject. A portrait against a plain wall has large areas an encoder can describe cheaply; the same person in front of foliage does not, and every leaf costs bytes. Two photographs that look equally complex to you can differ twofold at the same quality setting. When one file in a batch comes back noticeably smaller in dimensions than the rest, this is nearly always why.

    The quality is not a setting you choose - it is found by search, stepping down from 96% until the file fits. Two hundred kilobytes is usually reached partway down that range, which is why the picture comes back the size it went in.

    Other sizes