consola vs pino
Side-by-side comparison of consola and pino
- Weekly Downloads
- 24.8M
- Stars
- 7.1K
- Gzip Size
- 23.6 kB
- License
- MIT
- Last Updated
- 18h ago
- Open Issues
- 75
- Forks
- 211
- Unpacked Size
- 321.6 kB
- Dependencies
- 1
- Weekly Downloads
- 21.5M
- Stars
- 17.3K
- Gzip Size
- 20.2 kB
- License
- MIT
- Last Updated
- 1d ago
- Open Issues
- 150
- Forks
- 936
- Unpacked Size
- 654.7 kB
- Dependencies
- 9
Download Trends
Verdict
consola serves developers looking for a user-friendly and visually appealing console logging solution, while pino is tailored for those in need of a high-performance JSON logging tool. With a focus on speed and simplicity, pino excels in environments where logging performance and structured data are crucial.
For smaller projects or teams with limited logging needs, consola might be the preferable choice due to its elegant design and ease of use. Conversely, pino is better suited for larger applications that require robust logging capabilities and fast performance, especially in JSON format, making it ideal for web applications requiring structured logs.
While both tools are maintained actively, pino's larger community and popularity could offer more extensive resources for troubleshooting and support. Consider the specific logging needs of your project when deciding between these two options.
Detailed Comparison
| Criteria | consola | pino |
|---|---|---|
| License | Both packages are released under MIT license. | Both packages are released under MIT license. |
| Version | Older version at 3.4.2. | ✓Newer version at 10.3.0. |
| Use Cases | Ideal for simple, readable logging needs. | ✓Excellent for high-performance applications needing JSON logs. |
| Description | Elegant console logging tailored for aesthetic output. | Focused on fast, structured logging in JSON format. |
| Open Issues | ✓75 open issues show average maintenance level. | More open issues at 150 may indicate ongoing challenges. |
| GitHub Forks | Fewer forks at 211, indicating less experimentation. | ✓More forks at 937, suggesting broader usage and adaptation. |
| GitHub Stars | 7.1K stars reflect a good level of community interest. | ✓Higher engagement with 17.3K stars. |
| Unpacked Size | ✓Smaller footprint at 321.6 kB. | Larger size at 654.7 kB, which may impact loading times. |
| Weekly Downloads | ✓Higher popularity with 24.6M downloads. | 21.5M downloads indicates solid usage. |
| Community Support | Good support but smaller community. | ✓Larger community for troubleshooting and contributions. |
| Bundle Size (gzip) | Slightly larger at 23.6 kB, but still manageable. | ✓More lightweight at 20.2 kB. |