Is the extra step worth it?
On the fixed test image used for every measurement on this site, converting the WebP to AVIF took it from 247 KB to 104 KB — around 58% smaller.
That is a real saving, and on a media-heavy page it compounds. Whether it is worth doing depends on two things: how much you care about encoding time, and whether your audience is fully current.
Convert from the original if you still have it
This is a lossy-to-lossy conversion. The WebP already discarded detail, and encoding it as AVIF discards a little more — and worse, spends bits faithfully reproducing WebP’s own compression artefacts.
If the original PNG or JPG is still available, convert that instead. On our test image, PNG straight to AVIF produced 109 KB from a much better source, against 104 KB from the already-degraded WebP. Nearly the same size, noticeably better picture.
Both keep transparency
AVIF and WebP both support a full alpha channel, including semi-transparent pixels, so cut-out product shots and soft-edged logos convert cleanly in either direction.
Serve both rather than choosing
The strongest option is not to pick. A <picture> element can offer AVIF first and WebP as a fallback, and the browser takes the first one it understands:
<picture>
<source srcset="photo.avif" type="image/avif" />
<source srcset="photo.webp" type="image/webp" />
<img src="photo.jpg" alt="…" />
</picture>
Current browsers get the smallest file, older ones still get something they can render, and nothing breaks.