5 Replies Latest reply on Sep 10, 2014 6:19 AM by taylorsharpe

    FileMaker Social Network Rankings


      Sometimes I am dealing with prospective customers that have never heard of FileMaker and that raises questions as to FileMaker's legitimacy. Not that these customers would recognize a real database engine name, but they recognize the big software company names such as Oracle, Microsoft and IBM. Of course we can always throw around that FileMaker is an Apple subsidiary and everyone has heard of it.


      There is an Austrian company called "DB-Engines" that does a monthly ranking of databases. They are probably not unbiased in that they are a commercial database company and not a non-profit or educational institution. But that have a formula they have developed to search the internet to compare the relative popularity of different databases. This is more a measure of the social network relevancy of different database software names than say number of users or storage amounts or other measures you might use. But they run the report each month and it is an interesting thing to compare.


      For September 2014, they found 223 database engines and of them, FileMaker ranked 14th. Clearly FileMaker is not at the top of the heap, but 14 is fairly respectable in my opinion. The ones ahead of it were Oracle, MySQL, MS SQL Server, PostgreSQL, MongoDB, DB2, Access, SQLite, Cassandra, Sybase ASE, Solr, Redis and Teradata. A few of those are not traditional relational database that would compete with FIleMaker. Some are Document stores or search engines, etc.


      Feel free to read up on the ranking and method of ranking at: http://db-engines.com/en/ranking

        • 1. Re: FileMaker Social Network Rankings


          • 2. Re: FileMaker Social Network Rankings

            How is "popularity" being defined?


            I hope I recall correctly from a DevCon a few years ago, perhaps it was Dominique himself, who stated that in terms of number of installs, FileMaker is the #2 desktop database engine... unless you don't count all the unused instances of MS Access that come pre-installed on Windows computers.


            -- E

            • 3. Re: FileMaker Social Network Rankings

              Thanks Taylor!

              I wish I'd had that link yesterday when I was with a potential client...

              The ranking of FM might have been higher if it had ever been promoted by the parent co to the same extent as eg MicroSoft promoted its various SQL products.

              The comprehensive list is great, though. It gives it perspective. 14 is good! In a social media sense... that represents OUR contribution as much as anything else.


              Sent from my iPad

              Lyndsay Howarth

              11th Hour Group Pty Ltd

              • 4. Re: FileMaker Social Network Rankings

                So keep posting!  

                • 5. Re: FileMaker Social Network Rankings

                  DB-Engines formula evaluates the frequency at which the database engine name shows up in google searches, tweets, discussion frequency, number of LinkedIn profiles with the software, etc.  So that is why this is just a social network relevancy. 


                  Access is a direct competitor, but as you mentioned, it is hard to evaluate actual usage since many licenses went to computers that never use the software.  And when I talk to Oracle database developers, they remind us that FileMaker license number are high since we count the client software and they do not.  Then again Oracle does things like counting cores which FileMaker does not.  Such issues are why it is so hard to make comparisons between these different database engines. 


                  Other comparisons could be how many people are employed by the database company.  FileMaker has roughly 250 employees and Oracle has about 120,000.  But it is harder to compare companies like Microsoft where they sell a lot of other products than database software. 


                  It might be interesting to compare income with Oracle having around $10+ billion a year.  But FileMaker is a subsidiary of Apple and all we know are Apple's numbers, not FileMaker.  If you go back to 1999, there was a report that FileMaker's net revenues were $85 million. 


                  In general, these other measurement trends are not out of line with the social network comparisons in regards to FileMaker. 


                  I'm always interested in any other comparisons out there.