Pino vs Winston: Which Node.js Logger Should You Choose?

When you're building Node.js applications that need reliable logging, you'll quickly discover that your choice of logging library affects more than just where your logs end up. It impacts your application's performance, your team's productivity, and how easily you can debug issues in production.

Winston has established itself as the comprehensive logging solution for Node.js applications. You get extensive configuration options, multiple transport mechanisms, and rich formatting capabilities that can handle complex enterprise logging requirements.

Pino takes a different path entirely. It prioritizes performance above all else, using structured JSON logging and minimal processing overhead to ensure your logging never becomes a bottleneck in high-throughput applications.

The decision between these two libraries will shape how you approach logging throughout your application's lifecycle. This guide examines their fundamental differences and helps you choose the right tool for your specific needs.

What is Winston?

Winston changed Node.js logging by bringing in a flexible transport system that handles your app logs. It started as one of the first complete logging libraries for Node.js and became the most popular choice in the ecosystem.

Winston's biggest strength is its modular transport system. You can send the same log message to multiple places at once - files, databases, external services, and your console. The extensive formatting options give you complete control over how your logs look, from simple text to complex structured formats.

Winston also has an ecosystem full of transport plugins for almost every logging destination you can think of. Plus custom formatters for specific needs and integration tools that give you everything you need for enterprise logging.

What is Pino?

Pino puts performance first in Node.js logging while keeping things developer-friendly. Instead of trying to beat Winston on features, it focuses on speed and efficiency through structured JSON output and minimal overhead.

Pino builds on the idea that logging should never slow down your app. It achieves incredible performance through asynchronous processing and optimized serialization. It uses structured logging patterns that work perfectly with modern observability tools and log aggregation systems.

This approach cuts logging overhead significantly while keeping the observability your apps need. Pino proves you don't have to sacrifice functionality or developer experience to get high-performance logging.

Pino vs. Winston: a quick comparison

Choosing between these logging libraries completely changes how you handle observability and affects your app's performance. Each one represents a different way of thinking about logging implementation and management.

Here's what you need to know to make your decision:

Log formatting and structure

The way your logs look and their underlying structure affects everything from debugging efficiency to integration with monitoring tools. The formatting philosophy of each library shapes how you'll interact with your logs in both development and production.

Winston gives you complete control over log formatting. You can create custom formats, mix structured and unstructured data, and adapt output for different environments:

const winston = require('winston');

const logger = winston.createLogger({
  level: 'info',
  format: winston.format.combine(
    winston.format.timestamp(),
    winston.format.printf(({ timestamp, level, message, ...meta }) => {
      return `${timestamp} [${level.toUpperCase()}]: ${message} ${JSON.stringify(meta)}`;
    })
  ),
  transports: [new winston.transports.Console()]
});

logger.info('User logged in', { userId: 123, sessionId: 'abc' });
// Output: 2024-01-15T10:30:45.123Z [INFO]: User logged in {"userId":123,"sessionId":"abc"}

Pino enforces structured JSON logging from the ground up. Every log entry is a JSON object with consistent field names and types:

const pino = require('pino');

const logger = pino({
  level: 'info',
  timestamp: pino.stdTimeFunctions.isoTime
});

logger.info({ userId: 123, sessionId: 'abc' }, 'User logged in');
// Output: {"level":30,"time":"2024-01-15T10:30:45.123Z","msg":"User logged in","userId":123,"sessionId":"abc"}

This structural difference means Winston logs are human-readable by default but require parsing for machine processing, while Pino logs are machine-readable first but need formatting tools for human consumption.

Log levels and filtering

Controlling which logs get written and categorizing them by importance directly impacts both performance and debugging effectiveness. Each library handles log levels and filtering differently, affecting both runtime performance and operational complexity.

Winston provides flexible log levels that you can customize completely. You can define your own severity levels and configure different transports to handle different levels:

const winston = require('winston');

const logger = winston.createLogger({
  levels: { error: 0, warn: 1, info: 2, debug: 3, verbose: 4 },
  level: 'info',
  transports: [
    new winston.transports.Console({ level: 'debug' }),
    new winston.transports.File({ filename: 'error.log', level: 'error' }),
    new winston.transports.File({ filename: 'combined.log', level: 'info' })
  ]
});

logger.error('Database connection failed');
logger.warn('High memory usage detected');
logger.info('User authentication successful');
logger.debug('Processing user preferences'); // Only goes to console

Pino uses standard syslog levels (trace, debug, info, warn, error, fatal) and focuses on runtime level filtering for performance. You can't easily customize level names, but you get better performance:

const pino = require('pino');

const logger = pino({
  level: 'info' // Filters out debug and trace at runtime
});

logger.error('Database connection failed');
logger.warn('High memory usage detected');
logger.info('User authentication successful');
logger.debug('Processing user preferences'); // Completely skipped, no overhead

Winston's approach gives you more control but processes all log calls regardless of level. Pino's approach is more restrictive but completely skips disabled log levels for better performance.

Transport systems and destinations

Where your logs end up and the mechanisms that get them there is crucial for monitoring, debugging, and compliance. The transport philosophy between these libraries creates fundamentally different approaches to log routing and management.

Winston's built-in transport system lets you send logs to multiple destinations simultaneously with different formatting for each:

const winston = require('winston');

const logger = winston.createLogger({
  transports: [
    new winston.transports.Console({
      format: winston.format.combine(
        winston.format.colorize(),
        winston.format.simple()
      )
    }),
    new winston.transports.File({
      filename: 'logs/app.log',
      format: winston.format.json()
    }),
    new winston.transports.Http({
      host: 'log-server.example.com',
      port: 3000,
      path: '/logs'
    })
  ]
});

logger.info('User action', { userId: 123, action: 'login' });
// Goes to console (colorized), file (JSON), and HTTP endpoint simultaneously

Pino uses an external process model where logs go to stdout and external tools handle routing:

const pino = require('pino');

// Single destination approach
const logger = pino({
  level: 'info'
}, pino.destination('./logs/app.log'));

logger.info({ userId: 123, action: 'login' }, 'User action');

// Multiple destinations require multistream
const streams = [
  { stream: process.stdout },
  { stream: pino.destination('./logs/app.log') }
];
const multiLogger = pino({ level: 'info' }, pino.multistream(streams));

Winston handles complexity inside your application, while Pino pushes complexity to external tools and process management. This makes Winston more convenient for simple setups but Pino more performant for complex routing.

Child loggers and context

Managing context across your application's components is essential for tracing requests and understanding log relationships. Each library's approach to child loggers and context inheritance affects your debugging workflow and application architecture.

Winston provides full-featured child loggers that inherit parent configuration but can override any setting:

const winston = require('winston');

const parentLogger = winston.createLogger({
  level: 'info',
  format: winston.format.json(),
  defaultMeta: { service: 'user-service' },
  transports: [new winston.transports.Console()]
});

// Child logger inherits all parent settings
const childLogger = parentLogger.child({ 
  module: 'authentication',
  version: '1.2.3'
});

childLogger.info('User login attempt', { userId: 123 });
// Output includes service, module, version, and userId

Pino's child loggers are optimized for performance with efficient context inheritance:

const pino = require('pino');

const parentLogger = pino({
  level: 'info',
  base: { service: 'user-service' }
});

// Child logger efficiently inherits context
const childLogger = parentLogger.child({ 
  module: 'authentication',
  version: '1.2.3'
});

childLogger.info({ userId: 123 }, 'User login attempt');
// Context is merged efficiently without copying parent configuration

Winston's child loggers are more flexible but create overhead when you create many children. Pino's child loggers are lightweight and designed for high-frequency creation, making them perfect for per-request logging.

Log rotation and file management

Your logging library's approach to file rotation and long-term log management affects disk usage, performance, and operational complexity. Each library takes a different philosophy toward managing log files over time.

Winston provides built-in log rotation through specialized transports that handle file management automatically:

const winston = require('winston');

const logger = winston.createLogger({
  transports: [
    new winston.transports.DailyRotateFile({
      filename: 'logs/app-%DATE%.log',
      datePattern: 'YYYY-MM-DD',
      maxFiles: '14d',
      maxSize: '20m',
      zippedArchive: true
    }),
    new winston.transports.Console()
  ]
});

logger.info('Application started');
// Automatically creates new files daily, compresses old ones, deletes after 14 days

Pino delegates file rotation to external tools, focusing on fast log writing:

const pino = require('pino');

const logger = pino({
  level: 'info'
}, pino.destination('./logs/app.log'));

logger.info('Application started');
// Simple file output, rotation handled by system tools

For Pino, you typically use system-level tools for rotation:

# Using logrotate (common on Linux systems)
# /etc/logrotate.d/myapp
/path/to/logs/app.log {
  daily
  rotate 14
  compress
  delaycompress
  missingok
  notifempty
  postrotate
    kill -USR1 `cat /path/to/app.pid`
  endscript
}

Winston's approach is more convenient but adds complexity to your application. Pino's approach requires external configuration but keeps your application focused on logging performance.

Performance and throughput

The performance characteristics of your logging library directly impact your application's responsiveness and resource usage. Understanding the performance trade-offs helps you choose the right tool for your traffic patterns.

Winston processes logs synchronously, which means each log statement blocks execution until complete. This creates predictable behavior but can slow down high-traffic applications:

const winston = require('winston');

const logger = winston.createLogger({
  format: winston.format.combine(
    winston.format.timestamp(),
    winston.format.json()
  ),
  transports: [
    new winston.transports.Console(),
    new winston.transports.File({ filename: 'logs/app.log' })
  ]
});

// Each log call blocks until written to all transports
logger.info('Processing order', { orderId: 'ORD-123', items: largeOrderArray });
// Execution pauses here until console and file writes complete

Pino uses asynchronous processing and optimized serialization to achieve 5-10x faster logging performance:

const pino = require('pino');

const logger = pino({
  level: 'info'
}, pino.destination('./logs/app.log'));

// Non-blocking log operation
logger.info({ orderId: 'ORD-123', items: largeOrderArray }, 'Processing order');
// Execution continues immediately, log writes happen asynchronously

Performance benchmarks typically show: - Winston: ~10,000 logs/second - Pino: ~50,000+ logs/second

The difference becomes critical in high-throughput APIs where logging overhead can affect response times and server capacity.

Error serialization and debugging

Your logging library's handling of error objects and debugging information affects your ability to troubleshoot issues in production. Each library provides different approaches to error serialization and debugging support that impact both performance and observability.

Winston provides comprehensive error formatting with stack traces and custom error handling:

const winston = require('winston');

const logger = winston.createLogger({
  level: 'info',
  format: winston.format.combine(
    winston.format.timestamp(),
    winston.format.errors({ stack: true }),
    winston.format.json()
  ),
  transports: [
    new winston.transports.Console(),
    new winston.transports.File({ filename: 'logs/app.log' })
  ],
  exitOnError: false
});

// Rich error logging with context
try {
  throw new Error('Something went wrong');
} catch (error) {
  logger.error('Application error occurred', {
    error: error.message,
    stack: error.stack,
    userId: 123
  });
}

Pino uses optimized error serializers that structure error data for machine processing:

const pino = require('pino');

const logger = pino({
  level: 'info',
  serializers: {
    err: pino.stdSerializers.err
  }
});

// Structured error logging
try {
  throw new Error('Something went wrong');
} catch (error) {
  logger.error({
    err: error,
    userId: 123,
    operation: 'user-creation'
  }, 'Application error occurred');
}

// Child logger with error context
const requestLogger = logger.child({ requestId: 'req-123' });
requestLogger.error({
  err: new Error('Database connection failed'),
  duration: 5000
}, 'Database operation failed');

Winston's error handling is more human-readable but requires more processing. Pino's error serialization is optimized for performance and works better with error tracking systems that expect structured data.

Final thoughts

This comparison of Pino and Winston reveals two different philosophies in Node.js logging that serve different app needs.

Pino offers a compelling alternative for performance-focused apps that prioritize speed and structured logging. Its minimal overhead and JSON-first approach make it particularly appealing for high-traffic apps and modern observability practices.

Got an article suggestion? Let us know

Explore more

8 Best Node.js Logging Libraries

This article compares the top 8 Node.js logging libraries, discussing their features, pros and cons, and providing recommendations for which library is right for you

Logging with Pino

This tutorial will guide you through creating a production-ready logging system for your Node.js application using Pino

Logging with Winston

Learn how to start logging with Winston in Node.js and go from basics to best practices in no time.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.