TinyPNG vs Smush

TinyPNG and Smush both compress images on upload, but they cover different amounts of ground: TinyPNG is a narrow plugin built on the Tinify compression API, doing one job - shrinking file size - well. Smush bundles that same core compression with lazy loading, bulk and directory-wide optimization, and Pro features like WebP/AVIF conversion and a CDN, all in one plugin from WPMU DEV.

TinyPNG sends images to the Tinify API for compression and returns them optimized, with usage priced beyond a free monthly quota. Smush handles compression locally in its free tier and adds lazy loading and directory-level optimization for images stored outside the media library, with format conversion and CDN delivery reserved for its Pro tier, sold through a WPMU DEV membership.

Quick verdict: Choose TinyPNG if you want a focused compression tool built on a proven API and don't need lazy loading or a CDN bundled in. Choose Smush if you want compression, lazy loading, and directory-wide optimization together, with an upgrade path to WebP/AVIF conversion and a CDN.

TinyPNG vs Smush at a glance

Numbers above are StatWP's own estimates, derived from WordPress.org's bucketed reporting rather than an exact figure the directory publishes, and update automatically rather than reflecting a fixed snapshot.

Feature and starting price at a glance

Pricing and feature claims above are each vendor's own, pulled from their product and pricing pages rather than StatWP data. Neither plugin publishes a single flat number up front, but the underlying models differ in kind: TinyPNG's cost is tied to compression volume through the Tinify API, while Smush's Pro cost is tied to a broader WPMU DEV membership that bundles in tools well beyond image optimization.

What does TinyPNG actually do?

Beyond the install and ratings numbers, TinyPNG's own site positions the plugin around the same compression engine that powers its standalone web tool:

• Smart lossy compression that selectively reduces color counts while keeping quality changes close to invisible.

• Support for AVIF, WebP, PNG, and JPEG formats, with automated compression on upload.

• Format conversion, choosing the smallest output format automatically.

• The same underlying API also powers a developer API and a separate image CDN product, outside the WordPress plugin itself.

TinyPNG's own site markets the plugin as an extension of its broader compression service rather than a WordPress-specific product built from scratch.

What does Smush actually do?

Smush's own WordPress.org listing leans on covering more of the optimization workflow in one plugin:

• Automatic image compression on upload and in bulk across the whole media library.

• Lazy loading, so images only load once a visitor scrolls to them.

• Directory Smush, for optimizing images stored outside the standard media library.

• Pro features including WebP/AVIF conversion, a CDN with 119 global servers, and automatic image resizing to fix PageSpeed warnings.

• Automatic width/height attribute insertion to address layout-shift warnings.

WPMU DEV markets Smush on working "out of the box with no complicated setup," reserving delivery and formatting extras for its Pro tier.

What features does each one have that the other doesn't?

TinyPNG's clearest structural advantage is that it's a thin, dependable layer over a compression engine with a long track record outside WordPress entirely - useful if you already use the Tinify API or standalone TinyPNG tool elsewhere.

Smush's clearest structural advantage is scope - lazy loading and directory-wide optimization are included free, and its Pro tier adds a CDN and automatic resizing that address broader PageSpeed issues, not just raw file size.

Which should you actually use?

If you want compression handled reliably and don't need lazy loading or a CDN from the same plugin, TinyPNG's narrow focus keeps things simple. If you'd rather have compression, lazy loading, and an upgrade path to CDN delivery all inside one plugin, Smush covers more of that ground without adding a second tool.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between TinyPNG and Smush?

TinyPNG is a focused compression plugin built on the Tinify API, doing one job well. Smush bundles compression with lazy loading and directory-wide optimization for free, and adds WebP/AVIF conversion plus a CDN on its Pro tier. TinyPNG stays narrow; Smush covers a wider slice of image optimization in one plugin.

Is Smush better than TinyPNG?

Not universally - it depends on how much you want bundled together. Smush is the stronger pick if you want lazy loading and directory optimization included free, with a path to CDN delivery. TinyPNG is the stronger pick if you want a narrow, dependable compression tool without extra features you won't use.

Does TinyPNG include lazy loading?

No - TinyPNG focuses specifically on compressing and converting images on upload, and doesn't include lazy loading or CDN delivery the way Smush does on its Pro tier.

Is TinyPNG free?

The plugin includes a free monthly compression quota through the Tinify API, with a paid tier for usage beyond that - check tinify.com for current quota and pricing details.

Is Smush free?

The core plugin is free and includes compression, lazy loading, and directory-wide optimization. WebP/AVIF conversion, CDN delivery, and auto-resizing require Smush Pro through a WPMU DEV membership.

Which is better for fixing PageSpeed image warnings beyond just file size?

Smush, since its Pro tier specifically addresses auto-resizing and missing width/height attributes - two common PageSpeed flags that a pure compression tool like TinyPNG doesn't touch.

See the live, current numbers for either plugin any time on StatWP's TinyPNG page or StatWP's Smush page, or run this comparison yourself with StatWP's compare tool.