LoginRegister

React Three Fiber vs Vanilla Three.js

React Three Fiber (R3F) is a React renderer for Three.js. It produces the exact same underlying Three.js objects as vanilla code, just expressed as JSX components instead of imperative new THREE.X() calls, so the choice comes down to whether your project is already a React app (use R3F, gain the ecosystem and component composition) or not (use vanilla Three.js and skip the React dependency for a feature that doesn't need it).

Last updated . Verified against three.js r181.

Read the FAQJump to code

What actually differs between them

Almost nothing at the rendering level. See the full React Three Fiber guide for how the mapping works. What genuinely differs:

  • Syntax: JSX components (<mesh><boxGeometry /></mesh>) vs imperative calls (new THREE.Mesh(new THREE.BoxGeometry())).
  • State management: R3F scenes integrate naturally with React state, props and context. Vanilla Three.js has no built-in state model, so you design your own.
  • Composition: R3F lets you build reusable scene pieces as React components. Vanilla Three.js composition is functions/classes you design yourself, equally capable but with no framework convention.
  • Ecosystem: drei, @react-three/postprocessing, @react-three/rapier assume R3F. Vanilla Three.js has its own separate ecosystem of examples and addons, many of which R3F wraps.

Performance: is R3F slower?

No, not meaningfully. R3F's reconciliation overhead (React deciding what changed and applying it) is small relative to actual rendering cost, and the render loop itself calls the same Three.js renderer.render() either way. Real-world performance differences between an R3F project and a vanilla Three.js project come from application-level decisions, such as draw call count, asset size, and unnecessary re-renders triggered by React state changes touching the scene graph too often, not from R3F's abstraction layer itself.

The one R3F-specific performance trap: putting fast-changing values (like an object's position every frame) into React state, which triggers React re-renders unnecessarily. The correct pattern is mutating the Three.js object directly inside useFrame, not routing per-frame updates through setState.

A quick decision guide

Choose React Three Fiber if: your project is already a React app, you want the drei/postprocessing/physics ecosystem, or you want the 3D scene's state to compose naturally with the rest of your app.

Choose vanilla Three.js if: your project isn't React, 3D is a small isolated feature on an otherwise non-React page, or you need very fine-grained imperative control over render loop sequencing that fights React's declarative model.

Both produce identical underlying Three.js output. This decision is about developer ergonomics and codebase fit, not capability.

Which should you use?

If your project is already React, use React Three Fiber. The ecosystem and state integration are worth it, and there's no performance cost. If it isn't React, use vanilla Three.js and skip a dependency you don't need. Both are the same Three.js underneath, so this choice is reversible with real but manageable refactoring effort either direction.

Code

Vanilla Three.js (r181)
1import * as THREE from 'three'
2
3const scene = new THREE.Scene()
4const mesh = new THREE.Mesh(new THREE.BoxGeometry(), new THREE.MeshStandardMaterial({ color: 'orange' }))
5scene.add(mesh)
6
7function animate() {
8  mesh.rotation.y += 0.01
9  renderer.render(scene, camera)
10}
11renderer.setAnimationLoop(animate)
React Three Fiber, same scene
1import { Canvas, useFrame } from '@react-three/fiber'
2import { useRef } from 'react'
3
4function Box() {
5  const mesh = useRef()
6  // Mutate directly in useFrame. Don't route this through setState.
7  useFrame(() => { mesh.current.rotation.y += 0.01 })
8  return (
9    <mesh ref={mesh}>
10      <boxGeometry />
11      <meshStandardMaterial color="orange" />
12    </mesh>
13  )
14}
15
16export default () => <Canvas><Box /></Canvas>

Learn this properly

Learn Practical TSL

Your First Node Material

Node materials work identically in both. Start with the fundamentals.

Start the lesson (6 minutes) →

Frequently asked questions

Is React Three Fiber built on top of Three.js?

Yes. R3F is a React renderer that produces real Three.js objects. A <mesh> component creates an actual THREE.Mesh. Nothing about Three.js itself is reimplemented or replaced.

Does React Three Fiber have worse performance than vanilla Three.js?

No, not meaningfully. The reconciliation overhead is small, and the actual render call is identical. Performance differences in real projects come from application code, not from choosing R3F.

Can I mix vanilla Three.js code with React Three Fiber?

Yes. Since R3F produces real Three.js objects, existing vanilla Three.js code (a custom class, a loader, a shader) drops into an R3F project easily, typically wrapped in a small component or hook.

Keep reading

React Three Fiber

React Three Fiber (R3F) is a React renderer for Three.js: it lets you build a Three.js scene declaratively as React comp…

Three.js vs Babylon.js

Three.js is a lower-level, unopinionated 3D rendering library with the largest ecosystem and community on the web, while…

WebGPU vs WebGL

WebGPU is the successor to WebGL: a lower-level, more modern graphics API that exposes compute shaders and reduces CPU o…

All Comparisons

Back to the compare hub.