---
title: Comparison
description: How Elogs compares to evlog and other Elysia loggers
---

## Feature matrix

| Capability | Elogs | [evlog](https://evlog.dev) | [@bogeychan/elysia-logger](https://github.com/bogeychan/elysia-logger) |
| ---------- | ---------- | -------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Elysia plugin | Yes | Yes (`evlog/elysia`) | Yes |
| Pino-backed | Yes | Optional drains | Yes |
| Request context accumulation | `mergeContext`, `useLogger()` | `log.set()`, `useLogger()` | Manual |
| Single access log per request | Auto | `log.emit()` | Auto |
| File rotation | Yes | Via drains | Limited |
| `autoRedact` PII | Yes | Varies | Manual |
| WebSocket lifecycle logs | `createWsHandlerWrapper` | Manual | Manual |
| OTel trace correlation | `@eastgold15/elogs/otel` | Built-in integrations | Manual |
| AI usage on access log | `@eastgold15/elogs/ai` | `evlog/ai` | Manual |
| Presets (`dev` / `prod`) | Yes | N/A | N/A |

## When to choose Elogs

- You want **Pino** performance with Elysia-native `store.logger` ergonomics.
- You need **file logging and rotation** without wiring a separate drain.
- You prefer **incremental context** (`mergeContext`) plus automatic access logs instead of migrating to a wide-event-only API.

## When to consider evlog

- You want a **unified wide-event pipeline** across many frameworks with managed drains (Axiom, etc.).
- You rely heavily on **`evlog/ai`** and **`evlog` auth** integrations out of the box.

## Benchmarks

Run the monorepo benchmark package:

```bash
bun run bench
```

The `Elysia plugin request path` suite compares full `handle()` overhead for Elogs, evlog, and elysia-logger. Results vary by machine—use them for regression tracking, not absolute rankings.