SRT vs VTT: which subtitle format should you use?

The short answer

If you only need one file: SRT is accepted almost everywhere — YouTube, most video editors, and most social platforms. If you are embedding captions directly on your own website with the HTML5 <video> tag, use VTT — browsers expect it natively via the <track> element.

When in doubt, export both. They describe the same timed cues, so there's no real downside to having a copy of each.

What SRT is (and isn't)

SubRip (.srt) is a simple numbered list of cues: an index, a start and end timestamp, and the caption text. It has no native support for styling, positioning, or metadata — it just says what text should appear and when.

That simplicity is exactly why it is so widely supported: nearly every video editor, media player, and platform that accepts captions at all accepts SRT.

What VTT adds

WebVTT (.vtt) was designed for the web. It uses the same core idea — timestamped cues — but adds an optional header, basic cue styling and positioning, and comment support. Browsers support it natively for the <video> element without any extra library.

If your subtitles need to render on a webpage rather than inside a downloaded video file, VTT is the format the browser is actually looking for.

Picking one for your workflow

YouTube: either format works.

Your own website with a native <video> player: VTT.

Older desktop video editors or broadcast tools: SRT is the safer default.

Not sure yet, or distributing to multiple places: export both from the same job so you are covered either way.

Converting between them

VTT's cue structure is close enough to SRT's that converting between them is mostly a matter of timestamp formatting and an optional header — you don't need special software to reason about the difference, and TranSpeaker exports both directly from the same transcription job so there's nothing to convert by hand.