FileMaker Reviews

Name: FileMaker
Brand: Apple
Rating: 3.8 (5 reviews)

Vendor: Apple

3.8 out of 5

5 reviews
66% willing to recommend

372 followers

Post review

What is FileMaker?

Cross-platform relational database application

Get the FileMaker Buyer's Guide and find out what your peers are saying about FileMaker, FoxPro and more!

FileMaker is the #6 ranked solution in top Non-Relational Databases. PeerSpot users give FileMaker an average rating of 7.6 out of 10. FileMaker is most commonly compared to FoxPro: FileMaker vs FoxPro.

Helped 831,265 peers since 2012

Featured reviews

reviewer1540227

Computer Manager at a university with 10,001+ employees

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.

Read full review

reviewer1668102

Director, Service Training at a construction company with 5,001-10,000 employees

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.

Read full review

HeikoWitte

Account manager at a tech services company with 11-50 employees

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.

Read full review

FileMaker mindshare

As of January 2025, the mindshare of FileMaker in the Non-Relational Databases category stands at 7.1%, up from 4.9% compared to the previous year, according to calculations based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Non-Relational Databases

PeerAnalyst reports

Type	Title	Date
Category	Non-Relational Databases	Jan 22, 2025	Download
Product	Reviews, tips, and advice from real users	Jan 22, 2025	Download
Comparison	FileMaker vs Oracle Berkeley DB	Jan 22, 2025	Download

Title	Rating	Mindshare	Recommending
FoxPro	5.0	16.5%	100%	1 interview Add to research

Valuable Features

"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."

Room for Improvement

"FileMaker has some convoluted pricing."
"Multimedia data management is not really developed in FileMaker."
"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."