Skip to content
LidarKit

LAS vs LAZ

Identical data, different encoding. The choice is narrower than it looks.

The short version: LAZ is a losslessly compressed LAS file. Same points, same attributes, same coordinate reference system, roughly a tenth of the bytes. Because nothing is discarded, the decision is not about data quality — it is only about whether your tools can read compressed input, and whether you would rather spend disk space or CPU cycles.

Side by side

LASLAZ
File sizeBaseline~10–20% of LAS
Data fidelityFullFull — lossless
Read costNoneDecompression on the fly
Random accessDirectPer chunk
Software supportUniversalBroad, but not universal
Open standardYes (ASPRS)Yes (LASzip)
Best forActive processing, older toolsStorage, archiving, transfer

How much smaller, really

LASzip is commonly cited as producing files 7 to 20 percent of the original size. The variation is not random — it tracks how compressible your particular data is:

  • Compresses well: dense aerial survey data with regular scan patterns, where consecutive points differ by very little.
  • Compresses less well: sparse or irregular clouds, and files whose header scale factors demand high coordinate precision, since the low-order bits are closer to random.
  • Barely matters: the number of populated attributes. Empty or constant fields cost almost nothing either way.

Choosing

Use LAZ for anything at rest: archives, deliverables, data you are sending to a client, anything in cloud storage where you pay per gigabyte. There is no integrity reason to prefer LAS, and LAZ is an open format with several independent implementations, so compressing does not lock your data to a vendor.

Use LAS when a tool in your chain will not read compressed input — older QGIS builds, ArcMap, several CAD import paths — or when you are about to read the same file repeatedly in a tight loop and the per-read decompression cost starts to add up. A reasonable pattern is to keep a working LAS for the duration of a project and archive the LAZ.

Where COPC fits

COPC (Cloud Optimized Point Cloud, .copc.laz) is a LAZ file reorganised into a spatial octree with an index, so a client can fetch just the region and detail level it needs over HTTP without downloading the whole file. The compression is identical — it is a layout change, aimed at web and cloud delivery. It complements LAZ rather than replacing it: LAZ for archiving, COPC for serving.

Converting between them

Conversion is lossless in both directions, so it is safe to move back and forth as your workflow needs. Decompress LAZ to LAS or compress LAS to LAZ in your browser — no upload, no size limit, and the coordinate reference system is preserved.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between LAS and LAZ?
LAZ is a losslessly compressed version of LAS. The two contain identical point data, attributes and metadata — LAZ is typically 10 to 20 percent of the size, at the cost of a small amount of CPU time whenever the file is read.
Is LAZ worse quality than LAS?
No. LAZ compression is mathematically lossless, so decompressing a LAZ file reproduces the original LAS bytes exactly. There is no quality setting and no precision loss — this is unlike image or mesh compression, where size is traded against fidelity.
Should I archive in LAS or LAZ?
LAZ. There is no data-integrity argument for keeping uncompressed LAS in long-term storage, and LAZ is an open format with multiple independent implementations, so it carries no vendor lock-in risk.
Is LAS faster to read than LAZ?
Per byte of decoded data, yes — LAS needs no decompression step. In practice the comparison is often the other way round, because a LAZ file is five to ten times smaller and disk or network I/O is usually the bottleneck rather than CPU.
What about COPC?
COPC is a reorganised LAZ file with a spatial index, designed so software can stream a subset from cloud storage without downloading everything. It uses the same lossless compression, so treat it as a distribution format for web and cloud access rather than a replacement for LAZ.