FiveM: Comprehensive Frameworks comparison
This guide was created with the following products:
(Details may vary with products from different providers but the main concepts remain the same)
Introduction
Although GTA 5 has been on the market for many years, it experienced a renewed surge in popularity in 2017. This growth was largely driven by the emergence of multiplayer modifications. At the center of this development is FiveM, a platform created by CFX that quickly became the leading solution for modding and has since been officially supported and acquired by Rockstar.
During this time, numerous roleplay frameworks for FiveM have been established, receiving strong recognition from the community and significantly enhancing the gameplay experience.
Available Frameworks
The development of frameworks for FiveM has resulted in a wide variety of solutions. Some stand out due to innovative features and an active community, while others have become less relevant over time. The following frameworks have proven particularly influential in recent years.
ESX
ESX was introduced in 2017 by the developer Taerox and is based on the earlier EssentialMode framework created by kanersps. EssentialMode was one of the first frameworks for FiveM. ESX quickly became the most popular roleplay framework in the community.
QBCore
QBCore was launched in 2021 by the developer Kakarot and is a relatively new framework compared to ESX. It features a modern structure and is supported by a growing developer community.
vRP (deprecated)
The vRP framework was created in 2017 by ImagicTheCat and was among the first roleplay frameworks for FiveM. Although it was widely used for years, it is now considered deprecated.
Dunko's vRP (deprecated)
Dunko's vRP was developed in early 2018 by Dunko and is based on the original vRP framework. It was also one of the early solutions for FiveM roleplay servers but is now outdated.
Features
Each framework offers its own set of features and approaches for building a FiveM roleplay server. A detailed comparison of their differences is useful when deciding which system best suits a project.
ESX, QBCore, vRP, and Dunko's vRP represent different philosophies in server development, which has influenced their popularity within the community.
ESX is known for its wide range of built-in features. It includes a large set of integrated systems such as job mechanics, economic functions, and inventory management. This framework is especially suited for servers that aim to be ready quickly and make use of existing resources.
QBCore follows a modular design that offers more flexibility for developers. It includes fewer prebuilt features than ESX but allows for easier customization and expansion. This makes QBCore a strong choice for servers that require a personalized structure without unnecessary dependencies.
Support
Over the years, several frameworks have been developed for FiveM, but there are significant differences in how actively they are maintained and updated. Some receive regular improvements and benefit from active support, while others are no longer being developed or supported to any meaningful extent. The level of maintenance and community involvement varies greatly between frameworks.
ESX and QBCore both benefit from active development teams and a strong community. Frequent updates, new features, and ongoing bug fixes ensure that these frameworks remain technically current and continue to evolve based on user needs.
vRP and Dunko's vRP have experienced extended periods of inactivity in their development. Only a few updates have been released in recent years, and both frameworks are now largely outdated. They have lost relevance and no longer receive meaningful updates or support within the FiveM ecosystem.
The vRP and Dunko's vRP frameworks are no longer being actively developed and are therefore considered as deprecated. Technical issues may occur when using one of the frameworks.
Documentation
A clear and well-organized documentation is essential for effectively working with a framework. It greatly simplifies installation, configuration, and development, and plays a key role in determining whether a framework is suitable for long-term use.
The documentation for ESX is especially comprehensive and offers a wide range of resources for both server owners and developers. Its structured layout and large collection of tutorials help users quickly understand the system, from basic setup to advanced customization. Official documentation: https://documentation.esx-framework.org/
QBCore also features detailed documentation with extensive examples, in-depth explanations, and strong community contributions. Its structure is similar to that of ESX and supports efficient onboarding for new and experienced developers alike.
The documentation for vRP and Dunko's vRP is comparatively limited. Much of the information comes from community sources, which can lead to inconsistency and outdated content. Dunko's vRP builds on the original vRP with some modern extensions, but both frameworks lack actively maintained and centralized documentation.
Overview of official documentation sources:
- ESX: https://documentation.esx-framework.org/
- QBCore: https://docs.qbcore.org/qbcore-documentation
- vRP: https://vrp-framework.github.io/vRP/
- Dunko's vRP: https://jamesuk.gitbook.io/fivem-guides/dunko-vrp/docs
Compatibility
Compatibility with external resources is a key factor when selecting a framework for server development. It determines how easily additional features can be integrated and existing systems expanded.
ESX stands out with very high compatibility. Its long-standing presence and widespread use have led to the creation of countless community-developed resources that can usually be integrated into existing server setups with minimal effort. This makes ESX particularly appealing to projects that value flexibility and quick feature expansion.
QBCore also offers excellent compatibility. Its modular structure allows for targeted integration and extension of both custom systems and third-party resources. Many recent community releases are already designed with QBCore in mind, which further simplifies the integration process.
vRP and Dunko's vRP are more limited in terms of compatibility. Their structure is more rigid and relies on specific implementation patterns, which can make custom adaptations more difficult. Dunko's vRP introduces some improvements over the original vRP, but it remains heavily dependent on extensions developed specifically for its architecture.
Multiple frameworks cannot be used at the same time, as this would lead to technical issues. So think carefully about which resources are important to you and which framework suits you better.
Performance
There are significant differences in performance between the available frameworks, which can have a direct impact on server stability and the overall player experience. Key factors include resource consumption, optimization flexibility, and scalability. Frameworks with extensive built-in features may demand more server power, while modular systems tend to be more resource-efficient. Choosing the right framework based on specific project needs is essential to ensure optimal performance.
ESX is considered relatively resource-intensive due to its broad range of built-in features. Especially on servers with high player counts or complex systems, performance drops can occur if no additional optimization is applied. However, regular updates in recent months have led to noticeable improvements in performance.
QBCore stands out for its lightweight and modular design. Its structure allows only the necessary features to be loaded, making it significantly more efficient. QBCore is a strong option for servers that prioritize performance and scalability while retaining full flexibility in feature selection.
vRP can also become resource-intensive depending on the extensions and features used. For larger player bases or advanced roleplay mechanics, careful optimization is necessary to maintain a stable experience.
Dunko's vRP improves on the original vRP through various modernizations and performance adjustments. Despite these improvements, it remains less efficient in resource usage compared to more modern alternatives like QBCore.
Conclusion
ESX and Dunko's vRP have long been among the dominant frameworks in the FiveM community. ESX in particular is one of the most widely used systems and is installed on a large number of active servers. Its rich feature set and strong community support make it a popular choice among server administrators.
In recent years, QBCore has steadily gained traction and is now regarded as a strong alternative to ESX. While ESX benefits from an established user base, QBCore offers modern structures, modular customization, and faster development progress. New server projects increasingly opt for QBCore due to its efficiency and adaptability. Its lightweight architecture and active development make it a forward-looking option. In terms of new installations, QBCore is now catching up to or even surpassing ESX in many cases.
vRP and Dunko's vRP remain niche frameworks primarily appreciated by long-term users. They offer a unique roleplay experience but do not reach the same level of popularity or community growth as ESX or QBCore. Nevertheless, their focused design and loyal user base continue to make them relevant for specific types of servers.
Overall, QBCore appears to be the rising framework within the FiveM ecosystem, while ESX maintains its position as a reliable and widely supported standard. The choice between these frameworks ultimately depends on the specific needs of each project. Those looking for a proven system with a large selection of existing resources will find ESX suitable. Those who prefer flexibility, modern architecture, and customizability are likely to choose QBCore.
This summary helps clarify current trends and the differences between frameworks. As a final point of reference, a general comparison table is provided that evaluates the key aspects based on technical criteria.
| Comparison factors | QBCore | ESX | Dunko's vRP | vRP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Features | ★★★★★ | ★★★★★ | ★★★☆☆ | ★★☆☆☆ |
| Support | ★★★★★ | ★★★★★ | ★☆☆☆☆ | ★☆☆☆☆ |
| Documentation | ★★★★★ | ★★★★☆ | ★★☆☆☆ | ★☆☆☆☆ |
| Compatibility | ★★★★☆ | ★★★★★ | ★★★☆☆ | ★★☆☆☆ |
| Performance | ★★★★★ | ★★★★☆ | ★★☆☆☆ | ★★☆☆☆ |
| Result | 4.8/5 (★) | 4.6/5 (★) | 2.2/5 (★) | 1.6/5 (★) |