Understanding the differences between logs, traces, metrics, and immutable audit records
Audit trails and observability logs are not interchangeable. Learn the critical differences, when to use each, and how audit trails complement your observability stack.
HyreLog provides production-grade audit trails with cryptographic integrity, comprehensive compliance support, and developer-friendly APIs. Stop relying on ad-hoc logs and fragile exports—get an immutable source of truth for your security and compliance needs.
Join the Early Access Waitlist
A deep exploration of how to architect high volume, tamper evident audit logging systems capable of supporting enterprise scale workloads.
A detailed examination of how audit trails support insider threat detection, behavioral analysis, and rapid response in modern environments.
A detailed guide on what makes an audit trail API intuitive, reliable, and easy to integrate for modern development teams.
Audit trails and observability logs often get confused, but they solve very different problems.
Both are important. Both record information. But one is designed for incident response and operational awareness, while the other is designed for legal accountability, compliance, and forensic truth.
In this article, we break down the differences across security, architecture, compliance, and engineering workflow, and explain why modern systems need both.
Observability is the ability to understand the internal state of a system using logs, metrics, and traces. It answers questions such as:
Observability is built for debugging, performance analysis, and system health.
Unstructured or structured text messages output by applications.
Numeric time-series values that show trends (CPU, latency, throughput, queue depth).
A request’s journey through a distributed system.
Observability tools (Datadog, New Relic, Honeycomb, Grafana) help engineers identify root causes and ensure reliability.
But here’s the key:
Observability data is rarely immutable, trustworthy evidence of user actions.
And it’s not meant to be.
Audit trails are chronological, structured, tamper-evident records of business-relevant events:
Audit trails must be:
Unlike observability logs, audit trails are designed to answer:
A powerful way to understand the difference is this:
| Purpose | Audit Trails | Observability |
|---|---|---|
| Security investigations | ✔ | △ |
| Compliance + certifications | ✔ | ✘ |
| Debugging + root-cause analysis | △ | ✔ |
| Performance monitoring | ✘ | ✔ |
| Legal evidence | ✔ | ✘ |
| Detecting suspicious access | ✔ | △ |
| Infrastructure failures | ✘ | ✔ |
They overlap, but don’t replace each other.
Even mature observability stacks fall short for compliance and investigations:
They may be stored in files, overwritten, deleted, or lost during rotation.
Audit trails must be tamper-evident (hash chains, signatures).
Logs focus on system behaviour:
2025-02-01 ERROR Timeout calling service B
Audit trails focus on business behaviour:
User 124 changed role from viewer → admin at 2025-02-01 09:22 UTC
Log retention is often days or weeks.
Audit trails must survive years.
Infrastructure changes → logs lost.
Containers restart → logs gone.
Microservices split → logs fragment.
Audit trails must be durable, portable, and centralised.
Audit trails contain business events, not performance or debugging data.
They don’t track:
Observability keeps systems healthy.
Audit trails keep organisations accountable.
A modern system needs:
to keep systems running.
to keep organisations compliant, secure, and trustworthy.
When combined, engineers and security teams gain:
Datadog, Grafana, Honeycomb, Sentry.
HyreLog provides:
Together, they unlock complete visibility across both systems and actions.