We changed our name from IT Central Station: Here's why

FileMaker OverviewUNIXBusinessApplication

FileMaker is #2 ranked solution in top Non-Relational Databases. PeerSpot users give FileMaker an average rating of 8 out of 10. FileMaker is most commonly compared to FoxPro: FileMaker vs FoxPro.
What is FileMaker?
Cross-platform relational database application
FileMaker Buyer's Guide

Download the FileMaker Buyer's Guide including reviews and more. Updated: January 2022

FileMaker Customers
VUHL, Reynolds Services Inc., Market Refrigeration Specialists, Sea Breeze Farm, Jordan Lindblad, Henry Schein Dental
FileMaker Video

FileMaker Pricing Advice

What users are saying about FileMaker pricing:
"Its price is pretty reasonable. I am at a university. We get educational discount pricing from most of the major vendors."

FileMaker Reviews

Filter by:
Filter Reviews
Industry
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Company Size
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Job Level
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Rating
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Considered
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Order by:
Loading...
  • Date
  • Highest Rating
  • Lowest Rating
  • Review Length
Search:
Showingreviews based on the current filters. Reset all filters
Computer Manager at a university with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 5Leaderboard
User-friendly, very stable, reasonable price, integrates well, and has all sorts of capabilities
Pros and Cons
  • "The cross-platform Mac and Windows feature is most valuable. I can do all sorts of stuff with this tool. It has got all sorts of automation capabilities. I have used some of them, but I have barely scratched the surface of what it can do on automation. It is user-friendly, and it integrates well with other products. There are other third-party options that you can buy or in some cases, download for free to even extend it further. I use one or two of those."
  • "They're always improving it, and I have been quite pleased with their improvements. There is some organizational stuff that I'd like to see done differently. They should make a structure so that you can have the data in one file and the app, the scripts, and the program in another file. I would like to be able to easily share scripts between different databases. I write stuff, and some of the functions are shared across different databases. So, I have to copy them from one database to another. I wouldn't mind an infrastructure where I had a file, and on loading the program, this file is loaded with the functions that I had written. I can then call them from any database that I happen to be using. Currently, you have a database open that has all of its data pieces and program pieces, and then you open another database that has got all of its data pieces and program pieces. Nothing is shared between them. When I write a complex function and I want to use it in two or three different databases, I have to copy it to each one of them and also remember where all it is used. It would be good if it has a little bit different organizational structure so that you could put your shared stuff in one place, and it loads the stuff. It is just an architectural difference. I've sent this requirement to them, but I doubt if that's going to happen. It is a huge system, and making changes for a single individual doesn't happen that quickly."

What is our primary use case?

I use it for personal productivity and database stuff. I'm a unit-level computer manager, so I use it personally for stuff here at work, making my life easier. I use it extensively for lots of different things, both work and personal. It is not used widely throughout the university, but it is used.

I use it locally. They do have a cloud version, but I just don't use that.

How has it helped my organization?

I use it quite extensively for some of the stuff, and it is doing the job.

What is most valuable?

The cross-platform Mac and Windows feature is most valuable. I can do all sorts of stuff with this tool. It has got all sorts of automation capabilities. I have used some of them, but I have barely scratched the surface of what it can do on automation.

It is user-friendly, and it integrates well with other products. There are other third-party options that you can buy or in some cases, download for free to even extend it further. I use one or two of those.

What needs improvement?

They're always improving it, and I have been quite pleased with their improvements. There is some organizational stuff that I'd like to see done differently. They should make a structure so that you can have the data in one file and the app, the scripts, and the program in another file. 

I would like to be able to easily share scripts between different databases. I write stuff, and some of the functions are shared across different databases. So, I have to copy them from one database to another. I wouldn't mind an infrastructure where I had a file, and on loading the program, this file is loaded with the functions that I had written. I can then call them from any database that I happen to be using. 

Currently, you have a database open that has all of its data pieces and program pieces, and then you open another database that has got all of its data pieces and program pieces. Nothing is shared between them. When I write a complex function and I want to use it in two or three different databases, I have to copy it to each one of them and also remember where all it is used. It would be good if it has a little bit different organizational structure so that you could put your shared stuff in one place, and it loads the stuff. It is just an architectural difference. I've sent this requirement to them, but I doubt if that's going to happen. It is a huge system, and making changes for a single individual doesn't happen that quickly.

For how long have I used the solution?

It has been around 30 years. I've been using it since the beginning when it came out in the middle '80s. It came out when Macintosh was fairly new.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It is very stable. There are no issues with its stability.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

They've got very good scalability to a server and to the web.

How are customer service and technical support?

I didn't have to use tech support very often. They are very good. I would rate them a nine out of ten.

How was the initial setup?

It is super easy.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

Its price is pretty reasonable. I am at a university. We get educational discount pricing from most of the major vendors.

What other advice do I have?

I love this product. I have been using it for 30 years. It has got lots of capabilities. Don't sell it short. It can do a lot more than you might think it can.

I would rate FileMaker a ten out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Director, Service Training at a construction company with 5,001-10,000 employees
Real User
Top 5Leaderboard
User friendly with a good interface and good scalability
Pros and Cons
  • "It's a pretty good tool and there's a lot of support and there's a lot of people out there that know how to use it."
  • "FileMaker has some convoluted pricing."

What is our primary use case?

I used it before and I was trying to bring it to my new company. I've been having trouble. The world has changed. It's too bad IT has just gone way south and the IT industry just basically can't build stuff that's bulletproof, and so everybody gets worried about ransomware attacks and all this other stuff.

What is most valuable?

I like FileMaker due to the fact that it's relational. You can put it right in and it's user-friendly. It's easy to code and it's easy to make things. You can design reports and so on. It doesn't require a whole lot of coding experience.

I've used FileMaker in the past. I've used a program, platform called Omnis, which is a RAD, a rapid application development program. We're just trying to find some tools. We've got lots of data, lots of data and Excel has not changed since 1989 or thereabouts. The structure has not changed. It's still the same old entry formula, and you've got limited space and no debugger. Its reporting is not easy. You could spend your life understanding Excel. No one can afford to do that anymore. FileMaker is much easier. 

It's a pretty good tool and there's a lot of support and there's a lot of people out there that know how to use it.

FileMaker has done a good job setting up value-added resellers, much like Adobe Connect.

It has a pretty good interface. 

What needs improvement?

Every software company has just really un-straightforward pricing. They need to learn how to simplify. FileMaker has some convoluted pricing.

You've got to get a magnifying glass out and read between the lines to see what they're really saying. Most businesses aren't going to have dedicated users. They should have some type of floating license or something. I can work with a system that has all five users at a time and the sixth one has to wait. However, they don't know how to do that yet and make it easy for various users to access it.

For how long have I used the solution?

We had a one-year license, however, then IT wouldn't renew it as it wasn't an approved platform.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It's a pretty scalable product. The only thing I don't know about FileMaker is whether they have APIs to allow it to throw and pull data out of another proprietary software or something like that.

How are customer service and technical support?

The technical support is very helpful and responsive. I've quite satisfied with the level of support that they offer.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The licensing is a bit hard to understand. 

What other advice do I have?

Today IT rules businesses and they just tell you what tool you can use. I was just looking to see what kinds of things were out there. And once I know what they are, I can see, is this approved? Can we get a trial of this? Or whatever. It's a long process for me to go through. It's a punishing process.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Flag as inappropriate
Learn what your peers think about FileMaker. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: January 2022.
564,322 professionals have used our research since 2012.
HeikoWitte
Account manager at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Real User
Top 10Leaderboard
A good database that's easy to use and quite stable
Pros and Cons
  • "It's a good application that's easy to use."
  • "The UE is not very up-to-date. It looks like something that was created in the 90s. In that sense, the user experience is lacking."

What is our primary use case?

We are using FileMaker for our customers. When we are sending invoices, or making proposals, etc., we make calculations and offers to our customers via the solution. We also store our assets in the FileMaker inventory.

What is most valuable?

The database is the most useful aspect of the solution. It's where I spend most of my time when working with it.

It's a good application that's easy to use.

What needs improvement?

I've only used the solution for about five months, so I haven't used it long enough to notice if there are any features that are lacking.

The UE is not very up-to-date. It looks like something that was created in the 90s. In that sense, the user experience is lacking.

It would be nice if it was easier to export data. There's a lot of clicking involved. They should simplify the process so that it's not so difficult to send offers to our customers.

It should be easier to do a global search. You must know what you are searching for and can't be vague, otherwise, you won't find what you need.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using the solution for five months.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The solution is very stable.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The solution is very scalable. In some instances, I've just had to make a call and the solution was adjusted according to my request.

We use the solution every day, but I'm unsure if the company has plans to increase usage at this time. We are planning to grow this year, so it's possible that we might find that we need to scale the solution.

How are customer service and technical support?

I've never contacted technical support, so I don't have any experience with them to speak of.

How was the initial setup?

I was not present when the solution was originally implemented. They set up the solution maybe 10-15 years ago, and I just started using it when I came to the company.

What other advice do I have?

Our company is now an Apple premium reseller.

I'm only a user of FileMaker within our organization. I'm not sure if I'm completely knowledgeable about a lot of the intricacies of the solution.

The version of the solution we're using is FileMaker Pro 18 Advanced. 18.0.3.317.

We have about 20-25 people on the solution at our organization and there are about three to four technicians running the solution that are admins.

I'd advise others considering using the solution to test it out and try it first. If you plan to use it every day, it's important to talk to someone who uses it extensively to get a feel for what to expect. The UE is a bit difficult at first.

I'd rate this solution eight out of ten. If they updated the user experience and made its look and feel more up-to-date I'd rate it higher.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Reseller
RAFAŁ WYSZEWSKI
IT Director at a manufacturing company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Leaderboard
Needs improvement in standardization and multimedia data management
Pros and Cons
  • "I have found its resilience to attack most valuable. It's really difficult to attack the software."
  • "Multimedia data management is not really developed in FileMaker."

What is most valuable?

I have found its resilience to attack most valuable. It's really difficult to attack the software.

It's really stable as well.

What needs improvement?

I think standardization to the IT world could be improved in terms of working with relational databases and using the connector to go over databases to standard API. Also, all the standard patterns that are used for the development of software could be improved to use less scripts and to use more procedures, functions, and so on.

Multimedia data management is not really developed in FileMaker. So for master data, it should be really enhanced to do it quite well.

The lack of a specialist of the program is one of the main issues of this system. Finding someone who knows it is really hard.

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been using it in our company for about 10 years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It's a really stable solution, except when you change the version.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It has some limits in terms of scalability. FileMaker is good for small and medium-sized companies. When data grows, in the case of a bigger corporation, it will be difficult to scale it.

How are customer service and technical support?

Technical support was very helpful.

What other advice do I have?

I would rate FileMaker at three on a scale from one to ten and suggest that your first find a specialist and then use the product.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Flag as inappropriate