TinyPNG vs MiniPx: Compression Test Results

TinyPNG has been the default answer to "how do I compress images?" for years. It works, it is well-known, and millions of people use it. But it was built in an era when server-side processing was the only option. MiniPx was built for a different era — one where your browser can handle compression without sending files anywhere.

So which one should you actually use? We ran both through the same benchmark and compared everything that matters.

The core difference: where your files go

TinyPNG is a server-side compressor. You upload an image, their servers crunch it, and you download the result. Your photo makes a round trip across the internet.

MiniPx is a client-side compressor. For compression, your image never leaves your device: the browser's Canvas API and JavaScript do the work right on your machine. No upload, no download, no server. (The one server-side path on the site is Cloud HD, a Pro-only opt-in on the AI photo tools — it has nothing to do with compression.)

This single architectural difference affects everything else — speed, privacy, offline support, and cost.

Feature-by-feature comparison

Real compression test results

These three rows come from our October 2026 benchmark, which put the same 20 public-domain images through six free compressors at their default settings (sizes as the tools show them, 1 KB = 1,024 bytes). MiniPx’s Auto setting picked AVIF for both photos; TinyPNG returned JPEG and PNG. Both tools change over time, so re-check anything you plan to rely on. The full table, method and data are in the benchmark.

The rows above are three of the twenty images in our October 2026 benchmark, all run at each tool's defaults. Across all twenty, MiniPx saved a median 85.8% against TinyPNG's 64.4%, with almost the same median SSIM (0.983 against 0.982). The gap is not one-sided: on the nine JPEG photos MiniPx's Auto setting chose AVIF and kept less detail (SSIM 0.926 against 0.949), and on the light UI screenshot TinyPNG's PNG was less than half the size of MiniPx's. TinyPNG also took a median 9.8 seconds per image against MiniPx's 1.7, most of it the round trip to its server.

Privacy: the real differentiator

For a blog thumbnail, sending it through TinyPNG's servers is probably fine. But think about the other things people compress: passport photos, ID documents, medical images, confidential business files. Those are all going through a third-party server you don't control.

MiniPx processes everything locally. Open your browser's Network tab while compressing — zero image data leaves your machine. You can disconnect from the internet and it still works.

Speed and convenience

TinyPNG's speed depends on your internet connection and their server load. A 4 MB image takes 3-5 seconds on a fast connection. Most of that time is upload and download, not compression.

MiniPx compresses the same image in under a second because there is no network round trip. On slow connections, the difference is dramatic. On fast ones, both feel instant.

TinyPNG also has a 5 MB file size limit on the free tier. MiniPx has no hard limit — if your browser can load it, MiniPx can compress it.

When each tool makes sense

Choose TinyPNG if: you need an API for automated workflows (CI/CD pipelines, WordPress plugin auto-compression), or you are building a system that processes thousands of images programmatically. Their API is solid and well-documented.

Choose MiniPx if: you are compressing images manually — for a blog post, email attachment, form submission, or social media upload. No signup, no quota, files up to 200MB, works offline, and your files never leave your device.

MiniPx also reads BMP, TIFF and SVG, lets you choose the output format for an iPhone HEIC photo, and can target specific file sizes like 100 KB or 50 KB — something TinyPNG does not offer.

Both are good tools. TinyPNG has the brand recognition and the API. MiniPx has privacy, speed, and zero limits. For most people doing manual image compression, MiniPx is the better fit.