"We can't find anyone who knows FileMaker anymore."
If you've uttered these words in a meeting recently, you're not alone. That custom FileMaker database that's been running your business since the early 2000s? It's become the technical equivalent of a time capsule — except instead of preserving memories, it's preserving your company's inability to scale.
The harsh reality: FileMaker's developer ecosystem is shrinking, its web capabilities feel stuck in 2010, and trying to integrate it with modern tools is like trying to plug a USB-C cable into a floppy disk drive. But here's what nobody tells you about migrating away from FileMaker — you don't have to blow everything up and start over.
Why companies are finally jumping ship
Let's be honest about why you're really here. It's not because FileMaker is terrible — it's because it's become a business liability.
The talent crisis is real
Finding FileMaker developers in 2026 is like finding a payphone that works. Sure, they exist, but good luck when you need one urgently. Meanwhile, you can throw a rock in any direction and hit three React developers and a Python engineer.
Scalability hits a wall
FileMaker's concurrent user licensing model made sense when you had 20 employees. Now that you're pushing 200? Those per-seat costs are eating you alive. And don't even get us started on what happens when you try to serve data to thousands of web users.
Integration nightmares
Modern businesses run on APIs and webhooks. FileMaker... doesn't. While your competitors are automating workflows with Zapier and building custom integrations in hours, you're still exporting CSVs and praying the import doesn't break something.
Reality check: If your FileMaker database is mission-critical and you have zero in-house expertise, you're one retirement away from a crisis. Start planning your migration now, not when your last FileMaker developer gives notice.
Before you migrate: The assessment nobody wants to do
Here's where most migration projects go wrong — they start with the technology instead of the business logic. Your FileMaker database isn't just storing data; it's encoding years (maybe decades) of business rules, workflows, and "that's just how we do things" processes.
Document the undocumented
That calculation field that nobody remembers creating but everyone relies on? Document it. The script that runs every night to generate reports? Document it. The layout that Janet in accounting insists can't change? Document why.
Create a simple inventory:
| Component | Business Purpose | Migration Priority | Complexity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Customer database | Core CRM functionality | Critical | High |
| Invoice generation | Monthly billing automation | High | Medium |
| Legacy reports | Historical reference only | Low | Low |
Identify the sacred cows
Every FileMaker database has them — the features that seem ridiculous to outsiders but are absolutely critical to daily operations. Maybe it's a specific report format. Maybe it's a workflow that makes no sense but has worked for 15 years.
Don't dismiss these as "legacy thinking." They're often encoding important business logic that isn't written down anywhere else.
Your migration options: Choose your own adventure
Option 1: The "Rip and Replace"
What it is: Rebuild everything from scratch in a modern stack (think React + Node.js + PostgreSQL).
When it works: You have strong technical leadership, clear requirements, and budget for 6-12 months of development.
When it fails: You underestimate the complexity hidden in those FileMaker scripts and calculations. What looked like a simple database turns into a two-year death march.
Option 2: The "Lift and Shift"
What it is: Move to a low-code platform that mirrors FileMaker's approach (Airtable, Bubble, or even FileMaker Cloud).
When it works: Your FileMaker usage is relatively simple, and you need a quick win.
When it fails: You hit the new platform's limitations and end up needing to migrate again in two years.
Option 3: The "Hybrid Approach" (Our Recommendation)
What it is: Keep FileMaker running for complex legacy processes while building new features in modern tools. Gradually migrate functionality over time.
When it works: Almost always. It reduces risk, maintains business continuity, and lets you learn as you go.
The strategy:
- Build new features in your target platform
- Create APIs to sync data between systems
- Migrate users module by module
- Decommission FileMaker only after everything is proven
Data migration: Where dreams go to die
Let's talk about the elephant in the room — your data. FileMaker's relationship model doesn't map cleanly to standard SQL databases. Those repeating fields? Portal relationships? Calculation fields that reference other calculation fields? Yeah, good luck with that.
The data migration reality check
Simple fields (text, numbers, dates): Usually straightforward. Usually.
Relationships: Require careful mapping to foreign keys and junction tables.
Calculations: Must be rebuilt as database views, triggers, or application logic.
Scripts: Forget automated conversion. Plan to rebuild these by hand.
Container fields: Extract files, store in cloud storage, update references.
Pro tip: Start with read-only sync
Before you migrate anything, set up a read-only sync from FileMaker to your new database. This lets you:
- Test your data mapping without risk
- Build new features against real data
- Identify edge cases before they become emergencies
- Give stakeholders confidence in the new system
Realistic timelines (Spoiler: Longer than you think)
We've seen enough FileMaker migrations to know that everyone underestimates the timeline. Here's what's actually realistic:
Simple database (< 10 tables, < 50k records)
Timeline: 2-4 months Team: 1-2 developers Approach: Often can use lift-and-shift to low-code platform
Medium complexity (10-50 tables, complex business logic)
Timeline: 6-12 months
Team: 3-5 developers + business analyst
Approach: Hybrid migration recommended
Enterprise system (50+ tables, multiple integrated modules)
Timeline: 12-24 months Team: Full development team + project management Approach: Phased migration essential
Budget buffer rule: Whatever timeline you estimate, add 50%. Whatever budget you calculate, add 30%. FileMaker databases are always more complex than they appear.
Common pitfalls (Learn from our pain)
Pitfall 1: Underestimating user training
Your team has muscle memory built over years. That new interface that seems "intuitive" to your developers? It's going to cause chaos. Budget significant time for training and expect productivity to drop for the first month.
Pitfall 2: Forgetting about reports
FileMaker reports don't translate well to modern reporting tools. Each custom report needs to be rebuilt, and users will notice every tiny difference. Start cataloging reports early and prioritize which ones actually get used.
Pitfall 3: The "while we're at it" scope creep
"Since we're rebuilding anyway, let's add..." Stop. Just stop. Migrate first, enhance later. Every "small addition" adds weeks to your timeline.
Pitfall 4: Ignoring the political landscape
That FileMaker database? Someone built it. Someone maintains it. Someone's entire job might revolve around it. Ignore the human element at your peril.
The "keep what works" philosophy
Here's the contrarian take: You don't have to migrate everything.
If you have a FileMaker module that works perfectly and rarely changes, leave it alone. Build APIs around it. Treat it like a black box microservice. Yes, you'll eventually need to deal with it, but it doesn't have to be today.
Focus your migration efforts on:
- Modules that need frequent updates
- User-facing interfaces
- Integration points with other systems
- Areas where you're hitting FileMaker's limitations
Your migration checklist
Ready to take the plunge? Here's your pre-flight checklist:
- [ ] Complete database audit (all tables, scripts, layouts documented)
- [ ] Business process documentation (not just technical specs)
- [ ] Stakeholder buy-in (including that person who loves FileMaker)
- [ ] Migration approach selected
- [ ] Target platform proof-of-concept completed
- [ ] Data migration strategy tested
- [ ] Rollback plan documented
- [ ] Training materials prepared
- [ ] Success metrics defined
The bottom line
Migrating from FileMaker isn't just a technical project — it's a business transformation. The companies that succeed are the ones that respect what FileMaker has done for them while recognizing it's time to move on.
Start small. Test everything. Keep users in the loop. And remember: the goal isn't to build the perfect system. It's to build a system that's perfect for your business's next chapter.
Your FileMaker database got you this far. With the right approach, your migration can take you even further.
Next steps: Start with a database audit. List every table, every script, every layout. You can't migrate what you don't understand. And if you need help, don't be too proud to bring in experts who've done this before.
Ready to explore your migration options?
At Entvas, we've been working with FileMaker since 2006. We understand what makes these systems valuable — and we know how to preserve that value while modernizing your technology stack.
Entvas Editorial Team
Helping businesses make informed decisions
