QBOX vs QBCore: Which FiveM Framework Should You Choose? | VertexMods
QBOX vs QBCore: Which FiveM Framework Should You Choose?
September 5, 2025
Zuletzt aktualisiert: February 24, 2026
9 Min. Lesezeit
Introduction: Why frameworks matter
Your framework decides how fast you build features, how stable your city runs, and how easily you can scale. In FiveM, QBCore and QBOX are the two modern choices most owners evaluate. Both are capable, but they optimize for different trade‑offs: ecosystem breadth vs. modern Ox‑first architecture. This guide explains the differences with practical guidance you can act on.
This guide is part of our complete FiveM frameworks guide, where we compare ESX, QBCore, and QBOX in depth and help you choose the right one.
TL;DR
New server, modern stack, Ox ecosystem from day one? Favour QBOX.
Existing city with many QB‑native resources and staff who know QBCore? Stay on QBCore (or migrate in phases).
QBCore: The most popular Lua RP framework for FiveM, with years of community scripts and tutorials. Core repo: qbcore‑framework/qb‑core.
QBOX: A modern successor path with an Ox‑first philosophy (ox_lib/oxmysql/ox_inventory), plus a QB‑compatibility bridge to run many QB resources with little or no changes.
Problem this article solves
Choosing between QBOX and QBCore without overhauling your entire stack. We’ll compare features, performance patterns, ecosystem realities, and give migration checklists if you switch.
What is QBCore?
Origins. QBCore grew out of the community as a pragmatic, modular framework to speed up RP server development. It set conventions for players, jobs, inventories, finances, callbacks, exports, and common events. Because it’s been around longer than QBOX, it has the largest catalogue of ready‑made scripts (free and premium) and the most tutorials across YouTube/Discord.
Strengths.
Ecosystem scale. Thousands of QB‑tagged resources, from phones and jobs to admin tools and UI packs. Faster to assemble a city from existing components.
Developer familiarity. Devs, staff, and community helpers often know QBCore’s exports/events by heart. Troubleshooting is quick.
Stable conventions. Citizen data, callbacks, server/player state, and common patterns are well understood, reducing onboarding friction.
Flexible DB layer. Most modern QBCore servers run oxmysql today; older stacks used ghmattimysql/mysql‑async. You can keep your DB and scripts while modernizing around it.
Weaknesses.
Legacy variance. Many ‘classic’ QB scripts predate Ox best practices—mixed code quality and more refactoring when you push for 0.00–0.01ms idle.
UI fragmentation. Historic reliance on older UIs/inventories means you often replace or adapt to ox_inventory and newer UI kits anyway.
Future housekeeping. As best practices move toward Ox/typed utilities, you’ll steadily refactor glue code or add adapters.
Positioning. QBOX embraces the Ox ecosystem out of the box: ox_lib, oxmysql, and a modern approach to exports, events, and modules. It ships with a bridge layer that retains backwards compatibility with most QB resources, letting you adopt a cleaner core without giving up your favourite scripts.
Key characteristics.
Ox‑first foundation. Consistent utilities (math/tables/strings/draw) and modern patterns promote cleaner, faster resources.
Compatibility bridge. Many QB scripts run with minimal or zero changes—useful for phased migrations.
Batteries included. Multicharacter, multi‑job/gang, queue, and other must‑haves are first‑class modules rather than ad‑hoc addons.
Pros.
Performance‑minded defaults. Ox‑based patterns help reduce poll loops and draw calls, assuming you respect best practices across resources.
Security and quality posture. Clear guidance to avoid core edits; configuration over patching. Simpler audits.
Future‑proofing. Built for 2026+ FiveM: Lua 5.4, oxmysql, and modern UI stacks.
Cons.
Smaller ecosystem (for now). You’ll lean on the compatibility bridge or port scripts that rely on QB‑isms.
Team learning curve. Staff used to QBCore events/exports will need to adjust to Ox/Qbox idioms.
Minimal if you stay in QB‑land; migrating out later takes effort.
If you foresee Ox everywhere, start QBOX.
Learning curve
New if your team only knows QB; Ox habits to adopt.
Lower for existing admins; most staff already know QB flows.
Choose based on your staff’s current skills.
Notes that matter in practice
Your worst resource dictates performance. Framework choice helps, but the heavy hitters are UI, streaming assets, and badly timed loops. Always profile with resmon and police every PR.
Ox alignment is the trend. Whether you run QBOX or QBCore, moving to oxmysql, ox_lib, and ox_inventory tends to improve reliability and developer experience.
When to choose QBOX
Pick QBOX if most of these are true:
You’re launching a new server and don’t need dozens of legacy QB‑only scripts on day one.
You want Ox everywhere: ox_lib, oxmysql, ox_inventory, ox_target.
You care about long‑term maintainability more than maximum day‑one script count.
Your team is comfortable adopting new patterns and reading official docs.
If you are starting fresh: choose QBOX to align with Ox best practices from day one. You’ll write cleaner resources, minimize legacy tech debt, and still run many QB‑authored scripts through the bridge.
If you operate a mature QB city: stay on QBCore and modernize in place: oxmysql, ox_inventory, aggressive resmon budgets, and code review standards. Plan a QBOX pilot in staging to quantify benefits before any switch.
If you’re undecided: prototype both with identical content packs and measure: time‑to‑feature, resmon at idle/under load, and staff happiness. Pick the one that reduces your ongoing cost of change.
Conclusion & Next Steps
Both frameworks can run a top‑tier city. The difference is how much legacy you want to carry and how standardized you want your future to be.
