FileMaker Pro 与 CiviCRM
我想要一些关于这两个软件的意见，因为我们正在尝试更改当前的 Access 数据库，该数据库带来了很多问题并且完全过时了（它是 10 年前构建的）。这是我们想到的两个选择，作为一个非营利组织（20 名员工），这是一个相当大的决定，特别是在成本方面。由于业务类型的原因，我们也需要几个小时的开发时间。 任何反馈将不胜感激。
预先非常感谢您，
西尔瓦娜
I would like some input about these two softwares since we are trying to change our current Access database, which has brought many problems and is completely outdated (it was built 10 years ago). These are the 2 options we have in mind and being a non-profit organization (20 employees), it's quite a big decision in particular in terms of costs. Due to the type of business, we will need several hours of development too.
Any feedback will be greatly appreciated.
Thank you so much in advance,
Silvana
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（4）
由于几个原因，我会避开 filemaker pro。
CiviCRM 看起来不错。
蒂姆
I would steer clear of filemaker pro for several reasons.
The CiviCRM looks good.
Tim
我们是一家小型的，不以盈利为目的的。大约三年前，一位 filemaker 开发人员无法让他的应用程序为我们运行，也无法限制邮件发送，因此我们的大多数新闻通讯都被阻止了。我们转向在 Drupal 6 上运行的 CiviCRM，并且从未回头。尝试 CiviCRM 演示网站
We are a small not for profit. About three years ago a filemaker developer couldn't get his application to run for us and couldn't throttle mailouts so most of our newsletters were blocked. We moved to CiviCRM running on Drupal 6 and never looked back. Try the CiviCRM demo site
网络应用程序确实可以为资金短缺的非营利组织节省大量资金；然而，根据我们的经验，由于我们的许多客户居住在基础设施薄弱或不存在的国家，因此节省的费用尚未完全实现。如果成本是主要考虑因素，而基础设施不是问题，那么请务必选择 CiviCRM。 FileMaker 不具有成本效益（短期或长期），并且作为专有软件，您被锁定并且对其功能几乎没有控制权
Web apps do produce significant savings for cash-strapped non-profits; however, in our experience, since a number of our clients reside in countries with poor or non-existent infrastructure, the savings haven’t quite materialized. If cost is a primary concern, and infrastructure is not an issue, by all means go with CiviCRM. FileMaker is NOT cost-effective (short or long term) and being proprietary software, you are locked in and have little control over the functionality
上面的回答不太正确，因为你必须拥有一台超过 10 个席位的服务器（尽管大多数开发人员会建议尽快拥有服务器，因为有更好的可靠性和备份）。但无论如何，你都需要 20 个座位。拥有 20 个席位，您还有资格获得批量许可，价格稍便宜，并且由于是非营利性的，您可能有资格获得非营利/教育折扣。请参阅 FileMaker 购买常见问题解答。但那里没有数字，因此您需要请求报价才能获得准确的价格。
FileMaker 的缺点是您必须自己创建数据库，而 CiviCRM 似乎具有现成的功能。 FileMaker 提供了一些免费模板，但它们通常非常简单。 FileMaker 顾问的费用从每小时 20 美元到 150 美元以上不等，具体取决于他们的级别和经验，尽管许多顾问向非营利组织提供折扣。当然，FileMaker 也有优点；它通常比网络应用程序更快，作为桌面应用程序，它具有更熟悉的界面、不错的打印功能等，但在不了解有关您的需求的更多细节的情况下很难权衡这些。
The above response is not quite correct, because you have to have a server only with more than 10 seats (although most developers will recommend to have server as soon as you can, because of better reliability and backups). But with your 20 seats you'll need it anyway. With 20 seats you also qualify for volume license, which is slightly cheaper and, being non-profit, you may qualify for non-profit/educational discount. See FileMaker buying FAQ. There's no numbers there though, so you need to request a quote to get an exact price.
The disadvantage of FileMaker is that you'll have to make the database yourself, while the CiviCRM seems to have ready-to-use functionality. FileMaker offers some free templates, but they're normally very simple. FileMaker consultants' fees vary from $20 to $150+ per hour, depending on their class and experience, although many give discounts to non-profits. FileMaker has advantages too, of course; it's generally faster than web apps, as a desktop app it has more familiar interface, decent printing capabilities, etc., but it's difficult to weight these without knowing more details about your needs.