Compare two browser-local image tools honestly: Squoosh for interactive codec inspection and Kompixa for repeatable multi-file target-size, rename and ZIP workflows.
Direct answer · squoosh alternative for batch images
Is Kompixa a complete replacement for Squoosh?
No. Both process images locally, but they serve different jobs. Squoosh is strong for detailed single-image codec experimentation; Kompixa focuses on repeatable multi-file workflows, target KB limits, renaming and ZIP downloads.
Evidence on this page
The comparison links to the official open-source Squoosh project and avoids invented superiority claims.
Important limit
Codec availability and output behavior depend on the current browser and the features each project supports at the time of use.
Both tools process images locally
Squoosh describes itself as an open-source image compression web app using browser codecs. Kompixa also keeps supported image processing in the browser. The meaningful difference is workflow design, not a false claim that only one tool is private.
Need
Squoosh
Kompixa
Interactive visual inspection
Designed around opening an image, comparing output and tuning codec settings.
Provides source/processed previews, but prioritizes repeatable batch settings.
Multi-file workflow
Best suited to deliberate per-image optimization in its web interface.
Queue multiple files, use per-file overrides and download completed results together as ZIP.
Exact maximum size
Manual codec and quality tuning.
Target-KB iteration lowers quality and dimensions until the selected ceiling is reached when possible.
Organization
Codec-focused export workflow.
Rename patterns, local recipes, crop, rotate, watermark and CSV manifest.
Codec scope
Best-in-class codec experimentation is a core strength.
Uses browser-supported encoders and therefore has a narrower, browser-dependent codec surface.