pinojs/pino vs trentm/node-bunyan
pinojs/pino shows stronger signals overall
As of September 2026, pino shows healthier maintenance signals than node-bunyan. pino rates Healthy overall while node-bunyan rates Mixed. pino was committed to 1 week ago with 36+ active contributors, while node-bunyan last saw a commit 2 years ago with 31+ active contributors. Both use the MIT license. Neither has known critical or high-severity CVEs in its dependency tree.
Informational only. RepoPilot summarises public signals at the time of analysis. Not professional, security, or legal advice.
pinojs/pino
Healthy across all four use cases
No blocking maintenance, license, or known-CVE signals were found; still verify the package version and fit.
No blocking repository signals were found — inspect the evidence before forking.
Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.
No blocking repository-level signals were found; deployment review is still required.
- ⚠Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
- ✓Last commit 1w ago
- ✓36+ active contributors
- ✓Distributed ownership (top contributor 32% of recent commits)
- ✓MIT licensed
- ✓CI configured
- ✓Tests present
Computed from maintenance signals — commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests, cross-checked against dependency CVEs from deps.dev and OpenSSF Scorecard
trentm/node-bunyan
Stale — last commit 3y ago
No blocking maintenance, license, or known-CVE signals were found; still verify the package version and fit.
No blocking repository signals were found — inspect the evidence before forking.
Documented and popular — useful reference codebase to read through.
last commit was 3y ago; Scorecard "Branch-Protection" is 0/10…
- ⚠Stale — last commit 3y ago
- ⚠Concentrated ownership — top contributor handles 68% of recent commits
- ⚠Scorecard: marked unmaintained (0/10)
- ⚠Scorecard: default branch unprotected (0/10)
- ✓31+ active contributors
- ✓MIT licensed
- ✓CI configured
- ✓Tests present
What would improve this?
- •Deploy as-is Mixed to Healthy if: 1 commit in the last 180 days; bring "Branch-Protection" to ≥3/10 (see scorecard report)
Computed from maintenance signals — commit recency, contributor breadth, bus factor, license, CI, tests, cross-checked against dependency CVEs from deps.dev and OpenSSF Scorecard
Signal-by-signal breakdown
| pino | node-bunyan | |
|---|---|---|
| Stars | 18,191 | 7,208 |
| Last commit | 11d ago | 2y ago |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Open issues | 172 | 291 |
| Has tests | ✓ | ✓ |
| Has CI | ✓ | ✓ |
| Test coverage | 100% | 100% |
| Dependency CVEs | No CVEs | No CVEs |
| Architecture grade | — | — |
| Cycles | — | — |
| Bottom-line | Healthy signals | Mixed signals |
Want the full analysis? pinojs/pino · trentm/node-bunyan
Ask AI about pinojs/pino vs trentm/node-bunyan
Open the chat with a comparison question pre-filled.