So far I've been the one asking AIs about 50 GB logs (my product never came up). This time I reversed it: I handed Gemini and ChatGPT all ten of my comparison posts — measured matchups against EmEditor, klogg, ripgrep/grep, UltraEdit, 010 Editor, and Log Voyager — and asked them to organize everything by test size.
Full disclosure first: every data point is my own measurement. This is not a neutral review; it's my own benchmarks, re-organized by AI. The interesting part: two AIs, independently, drew nearly the same map.
The combined grade sheet (graded by the AI, corrected against the source posts)
| Tool | ~3 GB | ~10 GB | ~48–51 GB | Core use |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UwView Pro + Edit Upgrade | A | S | S | Huge-file search, replace, non-destructive editing, multi-day work |
| EmEditor | S | B | C | Fast replace within RAM; rich editing features |
| UwView Pro | A | S | S | Viewing, search, reopen, compressed archiving |
| klogg | A | A | B | Log monitoring and analysis |
| UltraEdit | A | n/m | n/m | Warns above 5 GB; larger tests skipped |
| 010 Editor | — | B | n/m | Could not complete the 50 GB run |
| UwView free desktop | B | B | B | Free viewer; full file visible from the start |
| UwView Wasm build | C | C | C | Completed the 47.73 GB browser search |
| Log Voyager (Web) | n/m | n/m | n/m | Loading truncated; search never completed |
| grep | — | — | B | One-off search: 64.64 s |
| ripgrep (rg) | — | — | B | One-off search: 71.49 s |
(n/m = attempted but not measurable under these conditions; — = not tested.)
The winner changes with size
~3 GB: EmEditor outright — two replacements in 0.9 s (7.0× faster than my tool), total 11.0 s vs 14.1 s. The AI: "best in class for one-shot editing."
~10 GB: everything completes; the gap opens at save & close. EmEditor's 187.3 s close is 81% of its total (the AI did that arithmetic itself). The ranking flips toward the diff-keeping UVP+Edit (51.91 s total).
~48–51 GB: on a 16 GB laptop, a runaway — 2 min 53 s vs EmEditor's 47 min 13 s. Same caveat as always: that's a 16 GB story; with 64 GB+ of RAM the picture may change.
The AIs also caught where I lose
grep (64.64 s) beats ripgrep (71.49 s) and is the right call for one-off searches. klogg wins at live monitoring, search-while-following, QuickFind, wrapping. EmEditor owns in-RAM editing, macros, CSV work. My posts were the source material, and the AIs still handed territory to everyone.
Their shared conclusion: the bottleneck lives at "save & close," not open or search; the moment a file outgrows RAM, the ranking flips; pick your tool by size and use.
Full disclosure
- All ten sources are my own posts; the AIs only re-organized them — not an independent benchmark
- Data mixes a 16 GB Windows laptop, a 32 GB Mac, and three storage types; cross-environment seconds aren't comparable
- The grade definitions are the AI's; some grades were corrected by the developer against the source posts. Rerun anything and I'll update to match
UwView Pro is on sale (Windows, macOS, Linux — one license covers all three; 14-day free trial — editing features included). The full tables, size-by-size details, and links to all ten source posts are in the original article:
Top comments (0)