Back to Squash page
Squash free download for Mac

Squash Reviews

2.0.4
05 September 2017

Easily compress and optimize images and photos (was Squish).

pietz
24 July 2015

Most helpful

I'm a big fan of ImageOptim as it outperforms JPEGmini in many ways and its free. I'll have to add that I use ImageOptim at 80% JPEG quality and disabled "JpegRescan" and "Jpegtran" for the test results. If you dont know much about it, I can easily recommend my settings after a lot of tests :) So Squish is the new kid on the block, lets see how it compares. I'm using version 1.0 of Squish which makes it a little unfair, because it just entered the market, so keep that in mind.

###THE TEST###
For my test i used 50 high resolution pictures from Unsplash, which is a completely mixed selection concerning current compression, size and content. However ALL of the files were JPEGs.

###SPEED###
ImageOptim: 27s
JPEGmini Pro: 21s - 22% faster
Squish: 16s - 42% faster

###COMPRESSION###
Originals: 277MB
JPEGmini: 114MB - 59% smaller
ImageOptim: 75MB - 73% smaller
Squish: 66MB - 77% smaller

###Quality###
Now, this one is hard because its obviously subjective and personal. I rated the results in percent where 100% is no visual quality loss and 0% being pretty unusable.
Original: 100%
ImageOptim: 90%
Squish: 88%
JPEGmini: 85%

No you might say: Cmon Pietz thats completely absurd giving a personal rating of 88% where nothing was actually measured. why not go with a scale from 1 to 10? - the easy answer to this question is: because the results were so close and every programm would have gotten a 8 or 9. there is NO visual quality loss at native pixels for all of the samples. The differences start at macro block level which is a 8x8 pixel array and was visible at 400% magnification. The Original almost never made the macroblocks visible, all of the compressed images did even so slightly. because of that it was 10% of for everybody. ImageOptim definitely and unarguably hold up the best. Squish being a very close 2nd and JPEGmini Pro being definitly softer than the other. Let me say again the differences were minimal.

###FORMATS###
Clear winners Squish and ImageOptim as they were the only two who were able to handle files other than JPEGs

###PRICE###
ImageOptim: free
JPEGmini: $20 ($150 for Pro)
Squish: $8

###OTHER STUFF###
JPEGmini and Squish dont have any options concerning quality, which at least for me is a HUGE let down. Squish simply doesnt have preferences. ImageOptim on the other hand has lots of options. you can even make it work without any visual compression going on, although this obviously doesnt compress images that much.

###SUMMARY###
-JPEGmini is crap and JPEGmini Pro is super expensive crap. I feel sorry for you if you bought it
-Squish is slightly faster, slightly smaller and slightly worse looking than ImageOptim
-ImageOptim is still the king at least for me. Its the most feature rich, has tons of options that you dont have to use if you dont know much about image files and its free and open source. Whats not to like? Since the speed of all application was super fast i personally dont care about a few seconds or 6% smaller files. i care about quality and not only is IO the best there you can push the quality up to Original Quality, which is just straight awesome.

###SHORT SUMMARY###
Get ImageOptim.
Like (3)
Version 1.0

Read 11 Squash User Reviews

Rate this app:

Big Johnson
06 September 2017
Hey Developer, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but...umm, that icon you've got there ain't a squash...it's an orange. And I can't figure out what an orange has to do with optimization/compression.
Like
Version 2.0.4
1 answer(s)
Moogan
Moogan
23 February 2018
Realmac are a British developer. "Orange Squash" is a common British term for a drink and hence its use a pun for a compression application. The allusion has nothing to do with a gourd or pumpkin.
Like (2)
doomcross1
12 August 2017
Good.
Like
Version 2.0.3
collin-burton
25 July 2017
Luckily I was trying this through Setapp, so I'm not out any money. I only tested one of Squash's uses; PNG compression, to see if could serve as an acceptable replacement for my current app; Pngyu (free). Since Squash is a paid app (that I was getting to use for free), I was expecting it to be at least comparable. For my test, I used 12 png files generated from Photoshop that ranged in sizes between 177 KB and 220 KB. First I tried Squash's standard setting. Compression took 7 seconds and the file sizes dropped to between 159 KB and 202 KB. Not much savings. I went into the apps settings, and turned on the "More Compressed (Slower)" option, and then ran the original files through again. "Slower" was right. It took 1 minute, 12 seconds to complete, and the range of compression was slightly better at 131 KB to 174 KB... still not what I would call great. I ran the same original files through Pngyu on the default compression, and the results ranged between 62 KB and 75 KB, and it was completed in 2.8 seconds. Then I compared them visually and couldn't see any difference between any of the compressed files. So, if you need an app that compresses PNG files, I would not recommend Squash over Pngyu, even if the prices were the same. As it is, Pngyu is free, and the speed, options for compression, and default compression setting all blow Squash out of the water. Since I didn't test any of the JPG compression options, I'm splitting the stars between 0 and 5, at 2.5.
Like
Version 2.0.2
画像劣化するタイプなら不要
Like
Version 1.0.3
1 answer(s)
@timi
@timi
11 December 2016
And this isn't a malicious review from a knockoff competitor at all...
Like
RogerKatz
25 July 2015
I have Squish 1.0, and when I use MacUpdate to install Squash 1.02 it apparently recognizes Squish as the equivalent of Squash - hence it doesn't do anything.
Like
Version 1.02
pietz
24 July 2015
I'm a big fan of ImageOptim as it outperforms JPEGmini in many ways and its free. I'll have to add that I use ImageOptim at 80% JPEG quality and disabled "JpegRescan" and "Jpegtran" for the test results. If you dont know much about it, I can easily recommend my settings after a lot of tests :) So Squish is the new kid on the block, lets see how it compares. I'm using version 1.0 of Squish which makes it a little unfair, because it just entered the market, so keep that in mind.

###THE TEST###
For my test i used 50 high resolution pictures from Unsplash, which is a completely mixed selection concerning current compression, size and content. However ALL of the files were JPEGs.

###SPEED###
ImageOptim: 27s
JPEGmini Pro: 21s - 22% faster
Squish: 16s - 42% faster

###COMPRESSION###
Originals: 277MB
JPEGmini: 114MB - 59% smaller
ImageOptim: 75MB - 73% smaller
Squish: 66MB - 77% smaller

###Quality###
Now, this one is hard because its obviously subjective and personal. I rated the results in percent where 100% is no visual quality loss and 0% being pretty unusable.
Original: 100%
ImageOptim: 90%
Squish: 88%
JPEGmini: 85%

No you might say: Cmon Pietz thats completely absurd giving a personal rating of 88% where nothing was actually measured. why not go with a scale from 1 to 10? - the easy answer to this question is: because the results were so close and every programm would have gotten a 8 or 9. there is NO visual quality loss at native pixels for all of the samples. The differences start at macro block level which is a 8x8 pixel array and was visible at 400% magnification. The Original almost never made the macroblocks visible, all of the compressed images did even so slightly. because of that it was 10% of for everybody. ImageOptim definitely and unarguably hold up the best. Squish being a very close 2nd and JPEGmini Pro being definitly softer than the other. Let me say again the differences were minimal.

###FORMATS###
Clear winners Squish and ImageOptim as they were the only two who were able to handle files other than JPEGs

###PRICE###
ImageOptim: free
JPEGmini: $20 ($150 for Pro)
Squish: $8

###OTHER STUFF###
JPEGmini and Squish dont have any options concerning quality, which at least for me is a HUGE let down. Squish simply doesnt have preferences. ImageOptim on the other hand has lots of options. you can even make it work without any visual compression going on, although this obviously doesnt compress images that much.

###SUMMARY###
-JPEGmini is crap and JPEGmini Pro is super expensive crap. I feel sorry for you if you bought it
-Squish is slightly faster, slightly smaller and slightly worse looking than ImageOptim
-ImageOptim is still the king at least for me. Its the most feature rich, has tons of options that you dont have to use if you dont know much about image files and its free and open source. Whats not to like? Since the speed of all application was super fast i personally dont care about a few seconds or 6% smaller files. i care about quality and not only is IO the best there you can push the quality up to Original Quality, which is just straight awesome.

###SHORT SUMMARY###
Get ImageOptim.
Like (3)
Version 1.0
4 answer(s)
pietz
pietz
24 July 2015
i did a few more tests with lower resolution files and was able to tell pretty visible differences even at native resolution. the ranking in quality stays at avertised although all 3 need to be stepped down 3% or so.

high resolution pictures are not very sharp at native resolution, but smaller files make it easily possible to tell the difference between the original and a compressed image.
Like
gryphonent
gryphonent
28 November 2016
Thanks for the test. I'm curious, might be the first one to ask, but would you mind sharing your settings for ImageOptim?
Like
Uncoy
Uncoy
14 December 2016
Brilliant review. Thanks very much for taking the time to test and post the results.
Like
dperugini
dperugini
12 January 2017
Wow! This was an EXCELLENT review. Entirely helpful. I appreciate the time it took you to perform the functions, calculate and assess the results, and compose such a clear, well-written review.
Like (1)
Javaman
21 July 2015
Is anyone using this on OS 10.9? For me Squish opens and displays its name in the menu bar, but that's it. No menu, no window, no Quit... no nut'n! Has to be quit via the Dock icon. No Console messages. Activity Monitor shows it as running (not hung). The info.plist file in the app bundle shows it as targeted for OS 10.10 but has 10.9 as the minimum system. No support link on the developer's website. Got this in a bundle but can't even register it. Any ideas?
Like
Version 1.0
steelie
03 July 2015
I give Squish *some* kudos for easy-of-use, speed and actual file-size reduction—it actually outperformed the free ImageOptim on all these points (although ImageOptim reduced PNGs more). Unfortunately, the quality of the “Squished” images are visibly inferior compared to the originals, killing it as a viable tool, professionally speaking. If you want to keep your images as close as possible to the originals, while still optimizing them significantly, I’d suggest ImageOtim over this in a heartbeat ➔ http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/28766/imageoptim
Like
Version 1.0
Plasterpyrus
22 June 2015
I agree if it says $5.99 then it should be $5.99. It's to bad the developer would probably sell more!
Like (1)
Version 1.0
1 answer(s)
steelie
steelie
03 July 2015
So, basically, you gave it a 1-start rating because of a $2 typo on the pricing.

That helps no one in the MacUpdate community.
Like
dwp-1
19 June 2015
I must be missing something because on MAS Squish is $7.99 and on the https://www.squishformac.com website the product is $7.99. How do you get it for $5.99? I know I am a cheapskate, at least I can admit it ;) I figure I must be missing something.
Like (2)
Version 1.0
MacUpdate-Ishaq
12 June 2015
What a nice little app! It does exactly what it says it does: drag a photo onto the app and its filesize is reduced. There is no setup, there are no settings... it just works. I duplicated a 4.5 MB photo, dropped the copy into Squish, and it came out at 1.3 MB with no discernible differences in picture quality whatsoever to my (highly) untrained eye – I have no clue how it does what it does, but it does it well. A more refined eye or maybe someone with some image analysis utilities might be able to break down what actually is happening and why the filesize is so demonstrably reduced, but I can envision plenty of uses for an app that works this well with this little fuss.
Like
Version 1.0
4 answer(s)
Rmoran
Rmoran
12 June 2015
How does it compare with JPEGmini with respect to file size reduction and processing speed? Does it also handle .png files like ImageOptim?
Like
Rmoran
Rmoran
12 June 2015
Answering my own questions. Using a 181.8 MB folder of 101 images observed the following:
Squish reduced to 150.1 MB for a 17% reduction in 32 seconds.
JPEGmini reduced to 144.3 MB for a 21% reduction in 252 seconds.
Squish was faster, but less effective and seeming couldn't deal with folders being dropped on it.
Unlike JPEGmini, Squish did handle PNG files, though for file size reduction and depending on the planned use for the output, DropJPG, with image quality options, may be a more effective way to reduce PNG file sizes.
Like
Rjmorita
Rjmorita
12 June 2015
I tried on 3 jpeg files.

Original JPEGmini Squash
5.9 MB 4 MB 2.4 MB
4.5 MB 3.3 MB 1.6 MB
4.9 MB 3.4 MB 1.9 MB
Like
MacUpdate-Ishaq
MacUpdate-Ishaq
14 June 2015
@Rmoran: Thanks for following-up with yourself! That's extremely helpful info. It was something I was wondering too – how it compared with existing similar software. My sense is that the studio professional may want to have more granular options for controlling image output, but the speed and cost of Squish makes it near impossible to ignore.
Like