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