AVIF against WebP, in practice
AVIF typically produces files 20 to 30 percent smaller than WebP at comparable quality, and the gap is widest on photographic content with smooth gradients — precisely the hero images that tend to be a page's LCP element.
The costs are encoding time and tooling. AVIF encoding is markedly slower than WebP, which matters for a build step processing thousands of images or an image service converting on demand. Some older tooling also handles AVIF's colour and transparency edge cases imperfectly.
The pragmatic position for most sites: WebP as the baseline, AVIF for the handful of large images where the extra saving is worth the encode, both behind a <picture> element with a JPEG fallback.