ObjectiveBased on traditional quality evaluation of Gardeniae Fructus（GF） recorded in historical materia medica， this study systematically compared the quality differences between wild and cultivated GF from morphological characteristics， microscopic features， and contents of primary and secondary metabolites. MethodsVernier calipers and analytical balances were used to measure the length， diameter and individual fruit weight of wild and cultivated GF， and the aspect ratio was calculated. A colorimeter was used to determine the chromaticity value of wild and cultivated GF， and the paraffin sections of them were prepared by safranin-fast green staining and examined under an optical microscope to observe their microstructure. Subsequently， the contents of water-soluble and alcohol-soluble extracts of wild and cultivated GF were detected by hot immersion method under the general rule 2201 in volume Ⅳ of the 2020 edition of the Pharmacopoeia of the People's Republic of China， the starch content was measured by anthrone colorimetric method， the content of total polysaccharides was determined by phenol-sulfuric acid colorimetric method， the sucrose content was determined by high performance liquid chromatography coupled with evaporative light scattering detection（HPLC-ELSD）， and the contents of representative components in them were measured by ultra-performance liquid chromatography（UPLC）. Finally， correlation analysis was conducted between quality traits and phenotypic traits， combined with multivariate statistical analysis methods such as principal component analysis（PCA） and orthogonal partial least squares-discriminant analysis（OPLS-DA）， key differential components between wild and cultivated GF were screened. ResultsIn terms of traits， the wild GF fruits were smaller， exhibiting reddish yellow or brownish red hues with significant variation between batches. While the cultivated GF fruits are larger， displaying deeper orange-red or brownish red. The diameter and individual fruit weight of cultivated GF were significantly greater than those of wild GF， while the blue-yellow value（b^*） of wild GF was significantly higher than that of cultivated GF. In the microstructure， the mesocarp of wild GF contained numerous scattered calcium oxalate cluster crystals， while the endocarp contained stone cell class round， polygonal or tangential prolongation， undeveloped seeds were visible within the fruit. In contrast， the mesocarp of cultivated GF contained few calcium oxalate cluster crystals， or some batches exhibited extremely numerous cluster crystals. The stone cells in the endocarp were predominantly round-like， with the innermost layer arranged in a grid pattern. Seeds were basically mature， and only a few immature seeds existed in some batches. Regarding primary metabolite content， wild GF exhibited significantly higher total polysaccharide level than cultivated GF（P<0.01）. In category-specific component content， wild GF exhibited significantly higher levels of total flavonoids and total polyphenols compared to cultivated GF（P<0.01）. Analysis of 12 secondary metabolites revealed that wild GF exhibited significantly higher levels of Shanzhiside， deacetyl asperulosidic acid methyl ester， gardenoside and chlorogenic acid compared to cultivated GF（P<0.01）. Conversely， the contents of genipin 1-gentiobioside， geniposide and genipin were significantly lower in wild GF（P<0.01）. ConclusionThere are significant differences between wild and cultivated GF in terms of traits， microstructure， and contents of primary and secondary metabolites. At present， the quality evaluation system of cultivated GF remains incomplete， and this study provides a reference for guiding the production of high-quality GF medicinal materials.