The linked series of comments (which, to be clear, I've only skimmed — there's a ton there) show zstd 22 sometimes coming behind Brotli 11d29, sometimes ahead on compression ratio; usually coming ahead of Brotli 11 on compression ratio; ~5x faster on compression throughput and ~2-2.5x faster on decompress throughput. To cherry-pick some numbers (the table after "259,707,904 bytes long open_watcom_1.9.0-src.tar", dated "TurboBench: - Mon Apr 30 07:51:32 2018"):

  Name         | Comp. size | Comp. ratio | C. MB/s | D. MB/s
  brotli 11d29 | 21117099   | 8.1         | 0.52    | 515
  zstd 22      | 22249772   | 8.6         | 2.32    | 1270
  brotli 11    | 22898691   | 8.8         | 0.57    | 662

So in that particular instance, zstd 22 comes out about 5% worse (+1.1 MB over Brotli 11d29's 20.1 MiB) on compressed size, but 3% better (-640kiB) vs Brotli 11 at 21.8 MiB. So... maximum compression is within a small margin; compression and decompression speeds are much quicker.

I think it's fair to say that zstd struggles the most at the extremes. On the fast extreme it loses (marginally) to lz4; on the slow extreme it (maybe) loses (marginally) to brotli. But it's relatively quick across the spectrum and provides a lot of flexibility.

It may make sense to continue to use Brotli or xz for static assets that are compressed infrequently and read often. But for something like HTTP Content-Encoding, where dynamic pages are compressed on the fly? Zstd would shine here, over both Brotli and (vanilla) zlib. (I know Chrome has some hacked up zlib on the client side, but I do not know too much about it.)

WebP has an excellent lossless image compressor (like PNG just 25-40 % more dense), but the lossy format has weaknesses that people focused on, and slowed down the adoption. The initial lossy encoder had weaknesses in quality -- it had bugs or was a port of a video coder. Nowadays, the quality is much better, but the format forces YUV420 coding (does not allow YUV444 coding) which limits the quality of colors and fine textures.

> but webp is reaching a decade and Safari still doesn't support it...

That’s a philosophical objection. For a long while Mozilla also was of the opinion that WebP is not “better enough” than JPEG/PNG to warrant the addition of another image format which the entire web must support forever using only one available implementation.

Plus I think there are still some unresolved patent claims on the VP8/9 video codec (which are the basis for WebP).