Claris' FileMaker is presented as a Workplace Innovation Platform, and is used to create a custom app. Manual processes can be automated with Claris FileMaker Pro, and apps can be created to manage contacts, track inventory, organize projects, etc.
$21
per month per user
Db2
Score 8.6 out of 10
N/A
DB2 is a family of relational database software solutions offered by IBM. It includes standard Db2 and Db2 Warehouse editions, either deployable on-cloud, or on-premise.
$0
PostgreSQL
Score 8.7 out of 10
N/A
PostgreSQL (alternately Postgres) is a free and open source object-relational database system boasting over 30 years of active development, reliability, feature robustness, and performance. It supports SQL and is designed to support various workloads flexibly.
N/A
Pricing
Claris FileMaker
Db2
PostgreSQL
Editions & Modules
Platform Subscription
$21
per month per user
Individual desktop license
$594
one-time fee
Db2 on Cloud Lite
$0
Db2 on Cloud Standard
$99
per month
Db2 Warehouse on Cloud Flex One
$898
per month
Db2 on Cloud Enterprise
$946
per month
Db2 Warehouse on Cloud Flex for AWS
2,957
per month
Db2 Warehouse on Cloud Flex
$3,451
per month
Db2 Warehouse on Cloud Flex Performance
13,651
per month
Db2 Warehouse on Cloud Flex Performance for AWS
13,651
per month
Db2 Standard Edition
Contact Sales
Db2 Advanced Edition
Contact Sales
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Claris FileMaker
Db2
PostgreSQL
Free Trial
No
Yes
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
Yes
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
Yes
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
Optional
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Claris FileMaker
Db2
PostgreSQL
Considered Multiple Products
Claris FileMaker
No answer on this topic
Db2
Verified User
Project Manager
Chose Db2
Oracle and Microsoft are the ones that we have more to compare with and they are on par with Db2. postgres is the small solution that usually we leave behind and move to Db2. Mongo is the one that is different from what I used Db2 for but I know it has the capability to use …
We are underway to evaluate both, in their benefits versus concerns. One thing that makes IBM Db2 better is it is a very mature database with great performance
It is faster and the transactions are much more safer and reliable if I compare it with the two SQL database I mentioned above, as far as MongoDB is concerned it completely depends upon the requirement of the project, if a SQL or a NoSQL database is more suitable for a project.
Db2 provides a combination of performance and scalability. Security wise, Db2 is always a first choice, especially for the systems where security can't be compromised. For mainframe systems, there is no other DB in the market that can perform better than Db2. If an organization …
Db2 has overall stronger capabilities with data maintenance, governance and task scheduling, however Teradata has a more developed online community with more robust and timely customer support. The support and training capabilities and the user community where you can interact …
Compared to similar products, Db2 shared common Relational DataBase Management System (RDBMS) features such as SQL support, data integrity, Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation and Durability (ACID) Compliance and concurrency control. However, the Db2 is designed for scalability, …
Db2 is one of the oldest and mature rdbms available in the market. IBM products were already been used in the organization. Cost effective in terms of licensing.
We are working for our product , where we were using different database but that database was not fast our work So we switch to IBM Db2 for better result.
Verified User
Analyst
Chose Db2
DB2 was more scalable and easily configurable than other products we evaluated and short listed in terms of functionality and pricing. IBM also had a good demo on premise and provided us a sandbox experience to test out and play with the product and DB2 at that time came out …
It's almost not comparable because they all do the same job in varying degrees. There are some things I like about Db2 that I don't enjoy about Oracle, but it mostly comes down to how it works and where it stores everything like SYS tables in Db2. MySQL is probably the fastest …
Price aspect is good with DB2, db2 Blu as was disappointing it couldn't compete with IQ. pureScale was disappointing and couldn't compete with Oracle RAC. Pros of using db2 is that it is admin friendly. Also it has a lot of flexibility with memory management which other RDMs …
PostgreSQL works better than MySQL for analytics workflows where a massively parallel processing database architecture is necessary. We used PostgreSQL because it allows better scalability for querying and data analysis compared to the transactional database MySQL that we use.
If your company is really small, I can understand the need for a product like this. However, I would go for MS Access... FileMaker Pro can not be integrated with other systems (like MS Access can at least be handled by C# for instance, and can be integrated with MS Excel or even SQL server). I'm really not sure in what scenario one would choose for FileMaker Pro. If your application or company grows bigger, you're going to have a problem to move to another environment. Also, the fact that only one person can work with the backend at any given time is a problem in a somewhat larger company.
I have primarily used it as the basis for a SIS - but I have migrated more than a few systems from there database systems to DB2 (Filemaker, MySQL, etc.). DB2 does have a better structural approach, as opposed to Filemaker, which allows for more data consistency, but this can also lead to an inflexibility that can sometimes be counterintuitive when attempting to compensate for the flexibility of the work environment as Schools tend to have an all in one approach.
PostgreSQL is best used for structured data, and best when following relational database design principles. I would not use PostgreSQL for large unstructured data such as video, images, sound files, xml documents, web-pages, especially if these files have their own highly variable, internal structure.
The relational database management system makes the program highly customizable to fit the needs of any product. You can add a ton of information to each record and update your inventory on a regular basis with an Excel import or manually inside of the record. It has the capability to incorporate barcoding, which can manage your available inventory with ease.
The scripting language allows FileMaker to automatically calculate complex algorithms automatically or generate report outs with the click of a button. This allows for greater UI, especially with active users who are not familiar with writing code. Almost all of our internal data is linked to the FileMaker database
The server license allows many users to update the database in real time, which is handy if your inventory is constantly changing. We have users with Macs, PCs, iPhones and handheld tablets linked to our FileMaker database and they are updating the information constantly throughout the day.
If you invest some time into formatting and scripting the database, there is a high ease of use for users without knowledge of any programming or FileMaker itself.
Developer features need to be beefed up - namely adding the ability to search code for a phrase or keyword and the ability to do the same in the "relationship graph" in the database.
Add ability for users to edit the same table record at the same time by version control.
Allow Filemaker Server to use more than 1 core; currently multi-processing is not supported and it can be tricky to find just the right server to support the application you've built to the fullest capacity.
It it not really up to me but my opinion does have some weight in the decision and the reason I would renew my use FileMaker Pro 8.5 is because I am finally getting used to it! Now that I have been working with the program, tasks have become quicker and projects are getting done faster. File Maker Pro 8.5 really is a versatile tool and I think we are just scratching the surface with it's abilities.
The DB2 database is a solid option for our school. We have been on this journey now for 3-4 years so we are still adapting to what it can do. We will renew our use of DB2 because we don’t see. Major need to change. Also, changing a main database in a school environment is a major project, so we’ll avoid that if possible.
It's almost what it should be after so may years and with Apple's longevity and strength behind it. For people who earn their living based on efficiency I think there are too many developer obstacles that waste time and therefore money.
You have to be well versed in using the technology, not only from a GUI interface but from a command line interface to successfully use this software to its fullest.
Postgresql is the best tool out there for relational data so I have to give it a high rating when it comes to analytics, data availability and consistency, so on and so forth. SQL is also a relatively consistent language so when it comes to building new tables and loading data in from the OLTP database, there are enough tools where we can perform ETL on a scalable basis.
I have never had DB2 go down unexpectedly. It just works solidly every day. When I look at the logs, sometimes DB2 has figured out there was a need to build an index. Instead of waiting for me to do it, the database automatically created the index for me. At my current company, we have had zero issues for the past 8 years. We have upgrade the server 3 times and upgraded the OS each time and the only thing we saw was that DB2 got better and faster. It is simply amazing.
The performances are exceptional if you take care to maintain the database. It is a very powerful tool and at the same time very easy to use. In our installation, we expect a DB machine on the mainframe with access to the database through ODBC connectors directly from branch servers, with fabulous end users experience.
The data queries are relatively quick for a small to medium sized table. With complex joins, and a wide and deep table however, the performance of the query has room for improvement.
The forums are great with lots of helpful experts and the staff monitor them to provide help where needed. There have been a couple of unique technical issues I've had to deal with that I haven't been able to get resolved so I chose to score this a 9 instead of a 10.
Easily the best product support team. :) Whenever we have questions, they have answered those in a timely manner and we like how they go above and beyond to help.
There are several companies that you can contract for technical support, like EnterpriseDB or Percona, both first level in expertise and commitment to the software.
But we do not have contracts with them, we have done all the way from googling to forums, and never have a problem that we cannot resolve or pass around. And for dozens of projects and more than 15 years now.
The online training is request based. Had there been recorded videos available online for potential users to benefit from, I could have rated it higher. The online documentation however is very helpful. The online documentation PDF is downloadable and allows users to pace their own learning. With examples and code snippets, the documentation is great starting point.
Suggest you use an iterative R.A.D. or AGILE development approach. (i.e. rather than writing a gigantic spec for a system, then building it). FileMaker facilitates quick prototypes. Developing an example, then allowing users to "try it out" is a snap.
FileMaker is still the quickest way to go from zero to having a minimum viable working solution. Simple solutions can be built in as little as a afternoon of development. It is the only tool I am aware of which allows tech savy end users with domain knowledge to build bespoke apps for their businesses without undertaking professional software development training.
DB2 was more scalable and easily configurable than other products we evaluated and short listed in terms of functionality and pricing. IBM also had a good demo on premise and provided us a sandbox experience to test out and play with the product and DB2 at that time came out better than other similar products.
Although the competition between the different databases is increasingly aggressive in the sense that they provide many improvements, new functionalities, compatibility with complementary components or environments, in some cases it requires that it be followed within the same family of applications that performs the company that develops it and that is not all bad, but being able to adapt or configure different programs, applications or other environments developed by third parties apart is what gives PostgreSQL a certain advantage and this diversification in the components that can be joined with it, is the reason why it is a great option to choose.
By using DB2 only to support my IzPCA activities, my knowledge here is somewhat limited.
Anyway, from what I was able to understand, DB2 is extremely scallable.
Maybe the information below could serve as an example of scalability.
Customer have an huge mainframe environment, 13x z15 CECs, around 80 LPARs, and maybe more than 50 Sysplexes (I am not totally sure about this last figure...)
Today we have 7 IzPCA databases, each one in a distinct Syplex.
Plans are underway to have, at the end, an small LPAR, with only one DB2 sub-system, and with only one database, then transmit the data from a lot of other LPARs, and then process all the data in this only one database.
The IzPCA collect process (read the data received, manipulate it, and insert rows in the tables) today is a huge process, demanding many elapsed hours, and lots of CPU.
Almost 100% of the tables are PBR type, insert jobs run in parallel, but in 4 of the 7 database, it is a really a huge and long process.
Combining the INSERTs loads from the 7 databases in only one will be impossible.......,,,,
But, IzPCA recently introduced a new feature, called "Continuous Collector".
By using that feature, small amounts of data will be transmited to the central LPAR at every 5 minutes (or even less), processed immediately,in a short period of time, and withsmall use of CPU, instead of one or two transmissions by day, of very large amounts of data and the corresponding collect jobs occurring only once or twice a day, with long elapsed times, and huge comsumption of CPU
I suspect the total CPU seconds consumed will be more or less the same in both cases, but in the new method it will occur insmall bursts many times a day!!
We are a more agile company because of FileMaker. A few of us who are tech-savvy enough to manage the database (but are not professional developers) can make needed adjustments to our database without having to employ an in-house developer or contract with a 3rd party. As our business processes evolve and change, it's easy to update the database to accommodate those changes.
Easy to administer so our DevOps team has only ever used minimal time to setup, tune, and maintain.
Easy to interface with so our Engineering team has only ever used minimal time to query or modify the database. Getting the data is straightforward, what we do with it is the bigger concern.