Is there any quality difference between PNG vs BMP image formats?

BMP is both uncompressed and lossless. PNG is compressed but lossless. Thus, with a lossless format the only visible difference is the file size. I'd recommend using PNG over BMP unless you can't for compatibility reasons.

There's no quality difference between BMP & PNG format (except PNG is compressed using deflate algorithm).

BMP8 can be compressed using RLE (run-length-encoding) algorithm, but BMP16/24/32/64 doesn't support compression yet.

BMP32 support alpha channel just like PNG32 support transparency.

No difference in quality, both standards are lossless. BMP uncompressed takes more space, but when compressed (e.g. when put in a .zip or .7z file) BMP can be better.

Having done some experiments, I saved a photo in BMP and in PNG, and compressed both files. (.zip) The BMP was 1.8% bigger, but that would vary between photos.

If you are compressing photos, it makes no difference.

However simple picture, such as a drawing you did in paint, or a diagram, will compress much better with .bmp rather than .png.

I again, tested this. I did a logo in paint (similar to a ford logo) and compressed it with 7zip. Uncompressed, the png was 136kb, the bmp 1.7 MB. Compressed, the png was ~100kb and the bmp was 18kb.

If you want to compress pictures, save in .bmp. If not, use .png.

Both when compressed whooped jpeg btw.