"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."
"I have found its resilience to attack most valuable. It's really difficult to attack the software."
"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."
"It's a good application that's easy to use."
"I like the drive and the support of this program."
"This solution is much more scalable than more traditional databases - at least the ones we are aware of."
"Multimedia data management is not really developed in FileMaker."
"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."
"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."
"FileMaker has some convoluted pricing."
"The pricing of the solution needs to be improved."
FileMaker is ranked 5th in Non-Relational Databases while Google BigTable is ranked 14th in Non-Relational Databases. FileMaker is rated 7.6, while Google BigTable is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of FileMaker writes "User-friendly, very stable, reasonable price, integrates well, and has all sorts of capabilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Google BigTable writes "Extremely scalable, quite stable and easy to deploy". FileMaker is most compared with FoxPro, whereas Google BigTable is most compared with .
See our list of best Non-Relational Databases vendors.
We monitor all Non-Relational Databases reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
