SnapComparison · Updated Oct 2026
TinyPNG vs Squoosh: Which Image Compressor Should You Use?
By Nawal Shrestha
Everyone who compresses images eventually hits the tinypng vs squoosh question. TinyPNG is the default "make this smaller" tool people reach for. Squoosh is the one developers recommend when someone asks for something private and free. They look interchangeable from a distance, but the differences matter once you pick a workflow.
What's the actual difference between TinyPNG and Squoosh?
The real split is where your files get processed and how many you can handle at once. TinyPNG runs on its own servers and takes 20 images per batch free. Squoosh runs in your browser, so files never leave your device, but it handles one image at a time. TinyPNG has paid tiers; Squoosh stays free.
How do TinyPNG and Squoosh compare feature by feature?
Feature by feature, TinyPNG wins on batch convenience and API plugins, while Squoosh wins on codec control, offline use, and privacy. Neither tool lets you type an exact target file size. The table below is the quick map; the sections after it explain when each row actually changes which tool you should open.
| TinyPNG | Squoosh | |
|---|---|---|
| Where files are processed | TinyPNG's servers (upload required) | Your browser (nothing is uploaded) |
| Free batch limit | 20 images per session, 5 MB per file | 1 image at a time |
| Price | Free tier; Web Pro $39/year; Ultra $149/year | Free, no paid tier |
| Format control | JPEG, PNG, WebP, AVIF | JPEG (MozJPEG), PNG (OxiPNG/OptiPNG), WebP, AVIF, JPEG-XL, and more |
| Target an exact file size | No | No |
| API / integrations | Yes, mature API and CMS plugins | No |
| Works offline | No | Yes, as a Progressive Web App after first load |
| Open source | No | Yes |
The table covers the basics. TinyPNG optimizes for convenience: drop a batch and download the results. Squoosh optimizes for control: you get sliders for quality, resize options, palette reduction, and a choice of codecs, plus a side-by-side preview with a draggable divider so you can see exactly what each setting does to quality before you save.
Which one compresses better?
Both compress well enough that ordinary JPEG and PNG differences are hard to spot at normal display size. TinyPNG uses its own smart lossy method, so results look clean without you touching a setting. Squoosh hands you codecs like MozJPEG and lets you dial quality yourself. Neither wins on quality alone—pick based on how many decisions you want to make.
TinyPNG is better when you want zero decisions. Squoosh is better when you care about a specific format or want to dial quality against file size yourself. If you just need a photo smaller with no fuss, either one does the job.
Which one is better for privacy?
Squoosh wins on privacy, full stop. Everything runs in your browser, so your images never touch a server. TinyPNG uploads every file for processing. That trade-off barely matters for screenshots and blog art, but it settles the question for client photos, ID scans, or anything under NDA.
This is the point most roundups skip. They compare file sizes and call it a day, but in 2026 the interesting difference between these tools is where your data goes. If you want the longer version of this argument, I compared TinyPNG alternatives on privacy, not just file size and measured the same trade-off across four tools.
How much do TinyPNG and Squoosh cost?
TinyPNG's free tier allows 20 images per session at up to 5 MB each with no account. Web Pro is $39 a year for unlimited compressions up to 75 MB per file; Web Ultra is $149 a year with 150 MB per file and unlimited conversions, per TinyPNG's plans. Squoosh costs nothing—no tiers, no accounts, one image at a time.
There is also a developer API with its own pricing on TinyPNG's side. Squoosh is an open-source project from Google Chrome Labs, and the web app is the whole product. Re-check TinyPNG's pricing page before you buy, since subscription numbers change.
When should you pick TinyPNG?
Pick TinyPNG when you have a batch of images and want them smaller with almost no setup. The 20-image free batch is generous for occasional work, and the quality is good enough that you can skip the settings panel entirely. TinyPNG also wins when your team needs an API or a WordPress plugin Squoosh simply doesn't offer.
The trade-off is the upload. If your files are sensitive or your connection is slow, sending every image to a server costs you time and bandwidth.
When should you pick Squoosh?
Pick Squoosh when you care about control or privacy more than batch speed. Codec choice matters if you're converting to WebP or AVIF and want to preview each setting. Browser-local processing matters if images shouldn't leave your machine. Offline PWA mode matters anywhere the network is unreliable.
The trade-off is the single-file workflow. Optimizing ten images means repeating the process ten times, which gets old fast. Squoosh is a precision instrument, not a batch pipeline.
What can't either of them do?
Neither TinyPNG nor Squoosh lets you type an exact target size. If an upload form rejects anything over 100KB, you compress, check the result, nudge quality, and try again until the file sneaks under the limit. That loop works for one photo; doing it for twenty is miserable guesswork.
That exact-KB gap is what I built SnapShrink for. It combines the parts of each tool that people actually want: batch processing like TinyPNG, browser-local privacy like Squoosh, and a target-size mode where you type "100" and the encoder hits it automatically. You can read the full walkthrough on how to compress an image to an exact KB size or the longer guide on reducing image size to 100KB.
Is there a third option worth trying?
If you need a private batch that also hits a hard size limit, neither TinyPNG nor Squoosh covers the full combo. SnapShrink does: up to 10 images free per session, no per-file size cap, on-device processing, WebP built in, and a target-KB mode. Pro is $9 one-time—cheaper than a year of TinyPNG Web Pro.
Plenty of write-ups already praise browser-local compression, batching, and watching a KB budget. Fair enough—those ideas aren't unique. What SnapShrink adds on top is the typed target: you enter 100, and the encoder binary-searches quality until the download is at or under that budget, across the whole batch, without an upload step. You're not nudging a quality slider and re-checking file size by hand after every try.
It does not replace both tools. If you need an API, TinyPNG still wins. If you want codec-level control over a single image, Squoosh still wins. SnapShrink wins the middle case: batches, privacy, and exact sizes. Try the free batch compressor and see which camp you fall in.
FAQ
Is Squoosh really free?
Yes. Squoosh is an open-source project from Google Chrome Labs with no paid tier, no accounts, and no usage limits. The web app at squoosh.app is the complete product.
Does TinyPNG upload my images to its servers?
Yes. TinyPNG's compression runs server-side, so every image you drop on the page is uploaded, processed, and sent back. That is also why the free tier caps files at 5 MB each.
Can Squoosh compress multiple images at once?
No. The Squoosh web app processes one image at a time. For batches you repeat the steps per image, which is the main reason people reach for a batch tool instead.
Can either tool compress to an exact file size?
No. Neither TinyPNG nor Squoosh has a target-size mode. You adjust quality and check the output until the file fits, which is trial and error. Tools with a target-KB mode automate that loop. For a walkthrough of typing a hard KB budget, see compress image to 100KB.
Which is better for converting images to WebP or AVIF?
Squoosh, because it gives you a choice of codecs and a live preview of what each one does to quality. TinyPNG supports WebP and AVIF output too, but with fewer controls. For when WebP beats PNG on the web, see the WebP vs PNG guide.
Which one is better for website speed and Core Web Vitals?
Squoosh has a small edge. Core Web Vitals reward small files in modern formats, and Squoosh gives you direct control over both: AVIF output with a quality slider you can tune against the preview. TinyPNG also shrinks files well, which is most of the battle. The bigger win is serving WebP or AVIF at the right dimensions, and either tool can produce those.
Does Squoosh work well on mobile?
Yes. Squoosh runs in the mobile browser and installs as a Progressive Web App, so it keeps working offline after the first load. The controls are usable on a phone screen. TinyPNG works in a mobile browser too, but every image still uploads first, which is slow on cellular data.
Do TinyPNG and Squoosh strip EXIF metadata?
TinyPNG strips metadata during compression on its servers, per its documentation. With Squoosh, nothing leaves your device, so there is no server copy of your metadata to worry about. Whether EXIF survives in the output depends on the codec and settings you choose, so check the output file before publishing if metadata must be gone.
What makes SnapShrink's exact target-KB mode different?
You type a hard size like 100, and the encoder searches quality until the file lands at or under that budget—no manual retry loop. That runs in your browser across a batch, not one file at a time and not on someone else's server. Browser-local privacy plus batch plus a typed KB budget is the combination TinyPNG and Squoosh each only half-cover.