Choosing a FiveM framework

The framework is the core a FiveM roleplay server is built on. It holds the players, their jobs and their money, and the scripts you add are written for it. It decides which scripts fit, how much you get before you add any, and part of how the server performs, so it is the first thing to choose.

The three most used are ESX, QBCore and Qbox. For a new server, start with Qbox: it ships higher-quality resources by default, runs most QBCore resources, and used less CPU than QBCore in testing. The sections below compare the three on usage, performance and completeness, list each one's strengths and weaknesses, then answer the Qbox or QBCore question.

The three frameworksCopy Anchor Link

Qbox and QBCore are close relatives. Qbox began as a fork of QBCore, and the point of the fork was not to rewrite the core: it was to replace QBCore's in-house resources with the strongest external ones the FiveM community has built. Its core, qbx_core, also answers as qb-core, so scripts that look for QBCore find it. What you learn on one carries over to the other almost entirely.

Usage shareCopy Anchor Link

Which frameworks public servers run, as of November 2026, from the Heartbeat.re census:

Heartbeat.re runs a continuous census of public FiveM servers: which are online, how many players they hold and which resources they run. A server counts for a framework when it runs that framework's core resource, es_extended, qb-core or qbx_core. Share of servers is the part of censused servers running each core. Share of players is the part of live players who were on those servers at the time. Other is every censused server running none of the three: standalone stacks, custom frameworks, and anything else the census can't put under one of them.

ESX runs on the most servers of the three and holds the most players. Qbox runs on more servers than QBCore, and the two hold about the same share of players. When this comparison was first made, in September 2025, ESX was first by server count, QBCore second and Qbox third. Qbox is the newest of the three and has grown the fastest.

The two columns can tell different stories: a framework popular with large servers holds a bigger share of players than of servers, and one popular with small servers the reverse. Other holds about a third of the servers but nearly two thirds of the players, so its servers are larger on average.

What the numbers can't tell you:

• Only public servers are counted. Private and unlisted servers the census can't see are in no column.
• A server is counted by its core resource. A renamed or heavily customized core isn't recognized and lands in Other. A server running more than one core counts for each.
• It is a snapshot. Player share moves with the time of day and the weekend. Read the trend, not the decimals.
• Share is not quality. It shows how big each ecosystem is, and so how much third-party support and community help to expect. It says nothing about whether a framework fits your server.

PerformanceCopy Anchor Link

Each framework's idle CPU use was measured in its default state: no changes, no extra resources and no players connected. FiveM's built-in profiler recorded, over 60-second intervals, the share of the server's processing power each one used.

Lower is better. ESX used 25% less CPU than Qbox and 43% less than QBCore, and Qbox about 23% less than QBCore. ESX is the lightest of the three out of the box, Qbox second and QBCore third.

The test ran in September 2025 on the builds current then. All three have shipped releases since, so take the figures as indicative. None of these figures makes or breaks a server on its own: your resource list matters far more than your framework's idle load.

CompletenessCopy Anchor Link

Usage and performance can be measured. Completeness is a judgment: how much a fresh install gives you before you add any scripts.

ESX has the basics, such as jobs and housing. It has no modern inventory, no target or other dedicated interaction system, no vehicle fuel or keys, no phone and no weather management. It ships the least of the three.

QBCore has everything ESX has, plus a modern inventory, its own target, vehicle fuel and keys, weather management, an admin menu, a full phone, criminal activities and more. All of it is built in-house, which makes QBCore the most complete on its own terms.

Qbox ships nearly as much as QBCore, but takes each piece from the strongest external resource instead of building its own: ox_inventory for the inventory, ox_fuel for fuel, Renewed Weathersync for weather, NPWD for the phone, and more. QBCore's versions exist and work. Qbox's case is that the community already built better ones, so the framework should ship those.

Counting what you get rather than who built it, Qbox is the most complete framework out of the box.

Strengths and weaknessesCopy Anchor Link

These come from the findings above and from supporting thousands of servers on all three frameworks.

ESXCopy Anchor Link

Strengths:

• The most used of the three
• Large third-party resource support, and the largest legacy script ecosystem
• The best performance out of the box

Weaknesses:

• Instability in its leadership, and an unclear direction
• Feels dated next to the other two
• No modern inventory, and it doesn't adopt high-quality external resources such as ox_inventory
• The least complete out of the box

QBCoreCopy Anchor Link

Strengths:

• Widely used
• Large third-party resource support, and the largest pool of tutorials and community answers
• The most systems of its own out of the box

Weaknesses:

• Mixed community sentiment, including about its origins
• No standard version control
• The worst performance out of the box
• High-quality resources such as ox_inventory don't support it

QboxCopy Anchor Link

Strengths:

• The fastest-growing usage share
• Looks and feels more modern
• Runs most QBCore resources
• High-quality external resources by default

Weaknesses:

• Less native third-party support: fewer scripts are written for it first
• No support for a custom inventory
• A fork of QBCore, not yet fully separate from its QBCore roots

Qbox or QBCoreCopy Anchor Link

On the QB side of FiveM, this is the real choice. The two share most of a resource ecosystem and still make noticeably different servers.

QBCore resources on QboxCopy Anchor Link

Most QBCore resources run on Qbox without changes, and most of what is written for QBCore (tutorials, snippets, support threads) still applies. The exceptions:

• Some scripts need small config changes.
• Resources that hook deep into QBCore's internals may need real changes, not just config edits.
• Qbox is built around ox_inventory. If your server depends on a custom inventory, Qbox is the wrong home for it today.

Which one to pickCopy Anchor Link

Pick Qbox if you are starting fresh, or want the strongest default stack without assembling it yourself. Pick it too if you are on QBCore and already replacing its in-house resources with ox resources one at a time: at that point you are building Qbox by hand.

Stay on QBCore if your server is built around a custom inventory, if it depends on resources that patch QBCore's internals, or if you want the largest pool of beginner tutorials and community answers written for exactly your framework.

When lation scripts spoke to server owners, 4 of the 6 running QBCore were switching to Qbox or wished they had started on it. Either way you end up on a capable, widely supported framework, and the skills carry over.

The best framework for a new serverCopy Anchor Link

Start with Qbox. It has issues of its own: it doesn't support custom inventories, and it has yet to separate fully from its QBCore roots. But it ships a higher-quality stack than QBCore builds in-house, runs most QBCore resources, and used less CPU than QBCore at idle. That makes it the framework to build a new server on.

ESX is a good option, and was lation scripts' framework of choice before Qbox. It measured lightest at idle, but its direction is unclear, it feels dated next to the other two, and it still doesn't adopt high-quality external resources such as ox_inventory itself.

QBCore builds the most of its own and is often called the best framework to start with. But it measured heaviest of the three, community sentiment about its origins is mixed, and high-quality resources such as ox_inventory don't support it, which makes it a harder start for a new server owner.

This is a recommendation, not a measurement, so do your own checks before you commit, starting with the resources you need.

QuestionsCopy Anchor Link

lation scripts on all threeCopy Anchor Link

Every lation script works on Qbox, QBCore and ESX, so whichever you choose, the whole catalog runs on it. None has a framework setting. Each script finds your framework when it starts, so ensure the framework before the script, as Install a script shows. lation ui and lation interact also run on a server with no framework.

Where a script calls the framework, it does so in its bridge files, which ship open with a marked place for a custom framework: that is where another framework or a modified core goes.