Comparison

How Logixlysia compares to evlog and other Elysia loggers

Feature matrix

Capability	Logixlysia	evlog	@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	wrapWs	Manual	Manual
OTel trace correlation	logixlysia/otel	Built-in integrations	Manual
AI usage on access log	logixlysia/ai	evlog/ai	Manual
Presets (dev / prod)	Yes	N/A	N/A

When to choose Logixlysia

• 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:

bun run bench

The benchmark package has three request-path suites: an overhead floor (all sinks disabled — measures plugin dispatch cost only), a structured sink run (no-op transport/drain — measures log assembly and dispatch), and a file sink run. Compare like with like: the floor numbers contain no logging work by design. Results vary by machine — use them for regression tracking, not absolute rankings.