Best Free Image Compressors in 2026: TinyPNG vs Squoosh vs Browser Tools
Image compression is non-negotiable for web performance. Google's Core Web Vitals — especially Largest Contentful Paint (LCP) — directly factor into search rankings, and unoptimized images are the number-one offender. But which free tool should you actually use?
We tested the most popular options across the criteria that matter: compression quality, batch support, format options, privacy, and cost.
The Contenders
TinyPNG / TinyJPG
The OG of online image compression. TinyPNG uses smart lossy compression to reduce file size with minimal quality loss. It's reliable and well-known.
Pros: Excellent compression quality, API available, widely trusted.
Cons: Uploads files to their servers. Free tier limited to 20 images at a time (500/month). Paid plans start at ~$39/year after a recent price increase. No WebP output on the free tier.
Squoosh (by Google)
Google's open-source image compression app. It runs entirely in the browser using WebAssembly codecs (MozJPEG, OxiPNG, AVIF, WebP). Excellent quality controls with a real-time comparison slider.
Pros: Browser-based (private), advanced codec options, completely free, great quality preview.
Cons: Single image only — no batch processing. The project hasn't seen major feature updates recently. No resize or bulk download options.
ShortPixel
A WordPress-focused image optimizer that also offers an online tool. Good integration with CMS platforms.
Pros: WordPress plugin, good compression ratios, multiple optimization levels.
Cons: Files uploaded to servers. Free tier limited to 100 images/month. Primarily designed for WordPress users.
PixelSqueeze
A newer browser-based compressor that combines Squoosh's privacy-first approach with batch processing and format conversion.
Pros: Batch compression with parallel processing, converts between JPEG/PNG/WebP, side-by-side quality comparison, completely private (no uploads), works offline once loaded.
Cons: Canvas-based compression (not WASM codecs), newer tool with less brand recognition.
Head-to-Head Comparison
| Feature | TinyPNG | Squoosh | ShortPixel | PixelSqueeze |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Batch processing | 20 images | No | 100/month | Yes |
| Privacy (no upload) | No | Yes | No | Yes |
| WebP output | Paid only | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Offline support | No | Yes | No | Yes |
| Free tier | 500/month | Unlimited | 100/month | 1/day (Pro unlimited) |
| Cost | $39/year | Free | $4.99+/mo | $19 lifetime |
Which Should You Use?
For one-off compressions with maximum quality control, Squoosh remains excellent. Its codec selection and real-time preview are unmatched — you just can't batch.
For bulk WordPress optimization, ShortPixel's plugin integration is hard to beat if you don't mind server-side processing.
For regular batch work with privacy, PixelSqueeze fills the gap between Squoosh's single-image limitation and TinyPNG's upload requirement. Drop a folder of images, compress them all, and download a ZIP — without any file ever leaving your browser.
For API/automation, TinyPNG's developer API is still the best option for build pipelines and CI/CD integration.
The Bottom Line
There's no single "best" tool — it depends on your workflow. But the trend is clear: browser-based compression tools are catching up fast, and for privacy-conscious users processing sensitive images (client work, unreleased designs, confidential materials), they're already the better choice.