FireConvertApp vs Squoosh: honest head-to-head

Feature-by-feature matrix

18 rows. We lose on open-source auditability, codec-tuning depth (JXL, per-knob encoders), the single-image comparison UI, offline PWA, and zero-server privacy. Orange check = meaningful advantage. Grey = roughly equivalent or depends on the job.

Where Squoosh beats us

We're closer to Squoosh philosophically than to any other competitor on this /compare list. Both are browser-side, both respect privacy, both are free at the entry level. Here's where they're legitimately better:

• Best-in-class single-image codec comparison UI. The split-pane slider that live-recompresses as you drag the quality knob, at pixel-perfect zoom, with instant before/after diff — nobody does this better. If your job is “tune this hero image to the smallest file size that still looks right,” Squoosh is the correct tool. Our image tools have a basic before/after preview; theirs is substantially better for visual quality evaluation.
• Open source under Apache 2.0. You can read their codec bindings, audit the encoder parameters, self-host a fork if Google ever pulls the plug. Our tool-wrapper packages are MIT but the core app is closed-source. For developers who value auditability above all else, Squoosh wins this row cleanly.
• JPEG XL (JXL) + per-knob encoder tuning. MozJPEG's trellis quant, OxiPNG's reduction steps, libavif's speed-vs-quality slider, JXL encode+decode, WebP v2, QOI — Squoosh exposes the entire parameter surface of every codec. We ship sensible defaults and a quality slider. If you're a compression nerd, Squoosh is the lab; we're the production tool.
• Literally zero servers — no trust required. Our AI tools are browser-side too, but our server conversion tools (PDF, audio, video) do upload. Squoosh has no server side at all for any operation. Nothing to leak, nothing to subpoena, nothing to trust beyond the browser itself. That's a stronger privacy posture than we can claim for our full toolset.
• Offline PWA. Squoosh is installable as a progressive web app and works fully offline after first load. We don't ship offline mode. If you're frequently on flights or in airgapped environments, Squoosh wins. It's on our radar, not our current quarter.

Where we beat Squoosh

• Batch mode — drop a folder, get a ZIP. Squoosh is one-image-at-a-time by design. We run batch on every image and PDF tool. For anyone processing 100+ photos from an iPhone export, a design asset library, or a folder of scans, batch is the difference between “useful for one file” and “useful for Tuesday.”
• HEIC, TIFF, BMP, ICO — the formats Squoosh skipped. iPhone photos arrive as HEIC and Squoosh doesn't decode them. Scanner output is TIFF; Squoosh doesn't handle it. Favicons are ICO; Squoosh doesn't generate them. We cover the full image format matrix most people actually encounter, not just the web codec shortlist.
• PDF tools — merge, split, compress, convert. Squoosh is images only. We ship PDF merge, compress, split, rotate, PDF↔Word, PDF↔JPG. For anyone whose daily workflow mixes images and PDFs (most office workers, students, accountants), having both in one tab is worth more than per-knob codec tuning.
• AI image tools bundled — they don't ship any. Background removal ( /remove-background), 2×/4× upscaling ( /upscale-image) — free, unlimited, run fully in your browser via ONNX. remove.bg charges $9–$99/mo for background removal alone; we include it because it costs us nothing. Squoosh is pure codec-land; we're codec + AI image toolkit.
• Audio, video, data — beyond images. MP3, WAV, FLAC, AAC, MP4, MOV, WebM, GIF, CSV, JSON, XML, YAML. Squoosh is images only, on purpose. If your file workflow spans media types, a single-purpose image compressor covers only one corner of the problem.
• Public API. Our v1 API covers image convert + PDF merge/split/compress/to-jpg with Bearer auth and flat-rate pricing. Squoosh is purely an interactive web app — no API exists. If you need to automate image compression in a pipeline, we're an option they don't offer.

Pricing — side-by-side

Unusual row here: Squoosh has no paid tier. It's free at every use level, no sign-up ever. Our tiers verified on both public sites as of 2026-04-24.

The honest take: if your only use case is single-image compression, Squoosh's free tier is flatly better than our free tier for that narrow job (no daily count, no file count). You pay us when you need batch, PDF tools, AI, API, or the broader format coverage — not for image compression alone.

Which should you use when?

Unusual framing for a comparison page: we genuinely think most people should use both, for different jobs. Here's the rule we'd give a friend.

1. Use Squoosh for surgical single-image work. Hero image for a website, OG card for a blog post, product photo where bandwidth matters — any time you want to A/B codecs visually, tune MozJPEG trellis quant, or ship JXL. Squoosh is the right tool. We can't match their codec comparison UI and we're not pretending.
2. Use FireConvertApp when the job grows. More than one file? Switch to us for batch. Got a PDF? Squoosh can't help — come to /merge-pdf or /compress-pdf. iPhone dump? HEIC isn't in Squoosh's matrix — try /heic-to-jpg. Need background removal or upscaling? /remove-background and /upscale-image are free, unlimited, browser-side.
3. Use the API when you automate. Squoosh has no API — it's an interactive app. If you're running image compression in a CI pipeline, a CMS upload hook, or a nightly cron, our /api/v1 covers image convert + PDF ops with Bearer auth and flat-rate pricing. Many teams keep Squoosh bookmarked for manual quality tuning and run us for the automation path.

This is genuinely a “both live” comparison more than any other on this list. Squoosh is a companion in our toolkit, not a competitor we're trying to displace. Different jobs, different tools, both free at the entry level. The wrong question is “which is better”; the right one is “which is better for this specific file, today.”

Common questions

Should I actually switch from Squoosh?

Probably not all the way — and that's an unusual thing for a comparison page to admit. Squoosh is genuinely the best tool in the world for one specific job: taking a single image and figuring out the best codec + quality setting by eye. Their split-pane slider with live re-encode is unmatched, and it's free, open source, browser-side. What we add is everything around that job — batch mode for 100+ files, PDF tools, HEIC/TIFF/BMP/ICO support, AI background removal and upscaling, audio and video. Many people end up using both: Squoosh when tuning a hero image for a website, us when processing an iPhone photo dump or converting a stack of PDFs.

What does Squoosh actually do that I can't do on FireConvertApp?

Three things: (1) JPEG XL (JXL) encode/decode — we don't ship JXL because browser support is still limited, Squoosh does because they're a codec-experimentation lab. (2) Per-knob tuning of every encoder — MozJPEG's trellis quant, OxiPNG's reductions, libavif's speed/quality curves, all individually exposed. Our image tools use sensible defaults and expose a quality slider; Squoosh exposes the entire parameter surface. (3) The side-by-side visual diff with live recompression as you drag the slider — we have a basic before/after, theirs is substantially better for eyeballing quality loss.

Both tools run in the browser — isn't Squoosh strictly more private then?

For single-image work, yes, Squoosh is marginally more private because it literally has no servers — there's nothing to trust even in the abstract. Our AI tools (background removal, upscaling) are the same — 100% browser-side, open DevTools → Network tab during inference and you'll see zero outbound requests. Our server-side conversions (PDF tools, audio/video, data formats) do upload to our servers, process in memory, and auto-delete within 60 minutes. If your only concern is single-image compression, Squoosh has a cleaner privacy story; if you also need server tools, we're competitive but not strictly equal.

Is Squoosh being maintained? I heard rumours.

Squoosh is a Google Chrome Labs project. It's been through maintenance lulls before — the v2 rewrite sat for a long time and there have been months where the GitHub repo looks quiet. It's not dead; it still gets releases and the site works reliably. But it's not anyone's day job, and Google has a history of quietly retiring Labs projects. Our angle here isn't a dunk — it's that if Squoosh disappeared tomorrow the core tools (MozJPEG, OxiPNG, libavif, libwebp) live on. You'd just need a different UI shell around them. We're one such shell.

Can I get Squoosh's codec-tuning experience on FireConvertApp?

Not at the same depth. Our image tools expose a quality slider and preserve-metadata toggle, and the output-format picker lets you choose JPG/PNG/WebP/AVIF/HEIC. That's enough for 95% of "compress this photo" jobs. If you need to A/B two codecs side-by-side at pixel-perfect zoom, run both through a slider, and compare file sizes down to the byte — Squoosh is the right tool. Use Squoosh for the one hero image; use us for the 200 thumbnails and the PDF merge and the audio clip and the HEIC dump.

What's the honest "when to use which" rule?

Use Squoosh when: you have ONE image, you want to compare codecs (especially JXL, WebP v2, AVIF), you care about tuning individual encoder knobs, or you want open-source auditability. Use FireConvertApp when: you have many files, you need PDF tools, you shot photos on iPhone (HEIC), you want AI background removal or upscaling, you need audio/video/data conversion, or you want a flat-rate API. Most people's honest answer is "both, for different jobs." That's fine — we don't need to be the only tool in your bookmark bar.