Squoosh Alternatives

If preparing images one at a time in Squoosh slows your publishing routine, TinyPNG is my first alternative. GIMP and Photopea make more sense when the job includes editing before export. These picks use official documentation, current plan details and user feedback; they replace different parts of the image workflow.

Why people look for Squoosh alternatives

• A folder needs processing. Squoosh's official FAQ describes batch processing as a requested feature; the browser workflow centers on an individual image.
• Compression belongs in an upload routine. The same FAQ doesn't offer a hosted server API. Tinify documents a developer integration for that job.
• The artwork needs changes first. The current Squoosh editor provides resize and compression controls. Photopea and GIMP document fuller image-editing workflows, including editable project files.

Leave Squoosh in the toolkit if inspecting codecs for a single image remains part of your work. An alternative can take over the repetitive or editing-heavy step without replacing every use of the original.

Quick picks

• Best for batch compression: TinyPNG. Its web workflow accepts a set of files.
• Best free desktop editor: GIMP. Edit the source and export a web copy.
• Best for teams exchanging PSDs: Photopea. Work with a layered file in the browser.
• Best open-source option: GIMP. A desktop image editor with source and export documentation.
• Best for automatic publishing: Tinify's Developer API. Connect compression to your upload process.

Compare the alternatives

Plan and platform details checked October 9, 2026. These are workflow choices, not a ranking by measured compression percentage.

TinyPNG: a better handoff for a batch

TinyPNG separates two allowances that are easy to confuse: its Web Free plan includes 20 compressions but only three conversions per session. If you need every source turned into another format, the conversion limit can arrive before you've used the whole compression allowance.

The free file-size cap is 5MB per image. Web Pro lists unlimited compressions with a 75MB cap, and Web Ultra raises that cap to 150MB while adding unlimited conversions. The current Web pricing page lists yearly per-user subscriptions; paid plans start above the free tier.

The reason to choose it over Squoosh is repetition. You can hand a set of ready-to-publish pictures to the service without making a manual codec decision for each one. That is a good fit for a writer exporting a small gallery or a shop preparing a group of product images with an established appearance.

TinyPNG also has a documented Developer API with 500 free compressions each month. That route matters when the same job should happen at upload time. It belongs in the site's integration plan, with its own credentials and allowances, instead of being treated as an extra button on a paid Web account.

Its weakness is less control over the compression decision. Tinify's official explanation describes lossy processing, color quantization for some PNGs and metadata removal. If your delivery instructions require the original pixels or metadata, automatic optimization can be the wrong step even when the resulting file looks fine at first glance.

A GIMP community discussion about PNG compression starts with a user impressed by TinyPNG's smaller output, then examines what changes when colors are reduced. My reason to read that exchange is the question it raises for a real export: do you want the smallest practical web copy, or an unchanged pixel result? Those are different deliverables.

For an upload-time integration, TinyPNG's API avoids having a writer repeat the browser step for every picture. That is where this option adds the most to a Squoosh workflow: the website can process its incoming images through a documented service, while the editor keeps the original design files outside that upload routine.

Switch if… you want a batch uploader or documented API after the image design is finished.

Stay with Squoosh if… choosing codecs and inspecting one image at a time is the part you value.

GIMP: edit locally, then export the delivery file

GIMP saves its editable project in XCF and uses export for delivery formats. That distinction is its strongest reason to replace a Squoosh-only workflow. A compression preview can't preserve a layered editing project that never existed in the first place.

The application is free and open source, with official downloads for Windows, macOS and Linux. Its software price is $0, with no paid application tier to compare. The official export documentation explains how XCF retains project information and why other formats lose some editing properties.

Choose GIMP when reducing file size comes after actual image work: removing an unwanted element, combining layers or preparing several crops from one source. For example, a product picture may need a corrected background before you decide its web dimensions. Doing those changes in an editor gives you a source you can revise again.

The tradeoff is that GIMP is a larger editing environment than a dedicated compressor. You need to understand the difference between saving the project and exporting the picture. It is more work to open a full editor solely to squeeze an already finished file than to use a compression tool that begins at that final step.

The linked PNG discussion includes a contributor explaining that GIMP focuses on image editing instead of dedicated file-size optimization. The writer values the finished artwork but is puzzled by its larger export. That is the weakness if compression is your only goal: GIMP gives you more control over the picture, without automatically choosing the smallest web copy.

The export format should follow the material. A photograph and a flat logo don't have the same visual structure. GIMP's web-image documentation covers choosing formats and transparency, so the decision can include those properties instead of being reduced to one universal compression slider.

My pick for someone who already edits locally is GIMP. Keep the project as XCF, then make the delivery files your site needs. For a person who receives finished images from a designer and only uploads them, TinyPNG is the shorter route; asking them to learn layers adds a job they weren't trying to do.

The XCF document is also the place to keep versions of an edit. For a picture reused at several sizes, work from that retained document and export each delivery size separately. You can revise a layer once and make another output without trying to reverse a flattened picture's earlier edits.

Switch if… your images need desktop editing and a retained project before they become web assets.

Stay with Squoosh if… the source is finished and you only want to compare compression settings.

Photopea: work with PSDs before compressing an image

Photopea works locally in the browser and uses PSD as its main editable document format. Its Open and Save documentation separates Save as PSD from Export As, which produces formats such as PNG or JPG. That makes it a practical option when the file arriving from a designer is still a layered document.

Core image editing is free. The official homepage offers the core editor without a paid subscription. It is a proprietary application; the public issue tracker is a place for support reports, not a promise that the editor is open source.

For a PSD-based handoff, the advantage over Squoosh is the ability to change the document before flattening it. A text layer, background adjustment or different crop belongs at the source stage. Exporting the finished artwork afterward creates the picture you can send to a dedicated compressor if it still needs another pass.

A June 2026 community post describes recreating a layered PSD and praises the editor's browser-based features. The author also shares the PSD for others to edit, which is exactly the kind of handoff this option supports.

The browser can still create file-saving friction. In Photopea issue #7813, the author clarified that ordinary downloads worked but choosing a particular local folder didn't. The maintainer suggested trying without browser extensions; the issue was later closed after no reply. For that failure, the distinction was choosing the download folder.

Photopea is my pick when you need a PSD editor and installation isn't the route you want. Its weakness against Squoosh is focus: layers, masks and document controls give you more to work with than a compression preview. If all you're doing is shrinking a completed photo, the larger workspace can be unnecessary.

Photopea's PSD workflow fits collaboration with someone already supplying layered documents. A designer can send the source, and the person preparing the website can change a text layer or crop in the browser before exporting. That avoids turning a simple correction into a request for another flattened picture from the original designer.

Switch if… opening and revising PSD files is part of getting images ready for publication.

Stay with Squoosh if… you need codec comparison without document editing.

Other common picks

ImageOptim is a free Mac app for optimizing existing image files.

Caesium offers a desktop compression route for Windows, macOS and Linux.

ShortPixel offers image optimization with website and WordPress workflows.

Moving your image workflow

There is no Squoosh account library to export for these choices. Start from the original image files. TinyPNG accepts supported delivery images; GIMP creates XCF projects; Photopea can save PSD documents. Changing the compressor doesn't reconstruct layers that were already flattened into a PNG or JPEG.

Separate the move into source work and final export. If your team needs future revisions, decide which editor keeps the project. Then decide whether its exported images go directly to the CMS, through a batch compressor or into an automated integration. That avoids treating a compressor switch as a replacement for a missing source archive.

For an existing site, leave old image URLs in place unless you have a clear replacement plan. A new export filename doesn't automatically change a post that points at the previous file. Publish the prepared copy through the site's normal media workflow and inspect the page that uses it.

FAQ

Is there a free Squoosh alternative?

Yes, GIMP and Photopea offer free image editing, and TinyPNG has a free web tier for 20 images per session up to 5MB each. The better choice depends on the job: use a desktop editor for source changes, a browser editor for PSD work, or a batch compressor for finished images.

Which option can I use without installing a desktop app?

TinyPNG and Photopea run in a browser. TinyPNG focuses on compression and conversion, while Photopea gives you an editing document with layers and PSD export. A browser workflow can therefore mean two quite different jobs; choose the one that matches whether the source is already finished or still needs changes.

Can I keep layers when moving from Squoosh?

Only if you still have an editable source containing those layers. A flat PNG or JPEG doesn't regain them when opened in GIMP or Photopea. Keep the original project file for future edits and export a separate web copy; compression of the delivery image doesn't replace the editing document.

Is a desktop editor better than a compressor?

It is better when you need to change the picture before exporting it. GIMP includes a project format for retained editing, while a compressor begins with an image you want to prepare for delivery. If the art is already approved, a dedicated compression workflow can spare you an editing step.

Sources

Official material: Squoosh FAQ and live editor; Tinify Web pricing, Developer API and compression guide; GIMP downloads and export manual; Photopea homepage and Open and Save guide; ImageOptim, Caesium and ShortPixel official sites. Linked community and developer discussions supply the user feedback. Browse Image Utilities and Image Editing & Design for related tools. Facts checked October 9, 2026.