text: user156: I have a large phylogenomic alignment of >1000 loci (each locus is ~1000bp), and >100 species. I have relatively little missing data (<10%).
  I want to estimate a maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree from this data, with measures of statistical support on each node.
  There are many phylogenetics programs that claim to be able to analyse datasets like this (e.g. RAxML, ExaML, IQtree, FastTree, PhyML etc). Given that I have access to a big server (512GB RAM, 56 cores), what are the pros and cons of each program.
  Which programme likely to give me the most accurate estimate of the ML tree for a dataset of this size within a reasonable timeframe?
  
  user45: This paper claims that FastTree is almost as accurate as RAxML, while being much faster. You just have to be careful, however, that the support values output by FastTree are not bootstrap values, they are based on the Shimodaira-Hasegawa test. (Also, see this comment for the case you have very short branch lengths).   [update: However, according to the recent comparison paper mentioned below FastTree performed quite poorly in comparison to RAxML or IQ-tree.]
  From what I understand, you should use ExaML only if your data is too large to be handled by RAxML in a single node. ExaML should perform like RAxML but with some parallelization overhead. For all effects I treat them as the same. I don't know of relevant advantages of phyML over RAxML (for me, it's easier to use but I am very used to phyML).
  I am not familiar with IQ-tree, but its authors claim that even given the same time as RAxML or phyML, IQ-tree already finds better likelihoods more often than not (although by default it takes a bit longer to converge). A recent comparison between all these programs favoured IQ-TREE for both single-gene and concatenation analyses (with RAxML very close). It may also estimate branch support through a SH-like test only, but I'm not sure.   [update: IQ-tree offers 3 measures of support, standard bootstrap, aLRT, and ultrafast bootstrap. See OP's comment below for details.]
  However, since you have few missing data, you might also want to try a single-locus tree inference followed by gene tree clustering (using treescape or treeCL) to see how spread your data is, or to see the effect of removal of outliers, or to use ideas similar to statistical binning.
  
original_text: 156: <p>I have a large phylogenomic alignment of &gt;1000 loci (each locus is ~1000bp), and &gt;100 species. I have relatively little missing data (&lt;10%).</p>
  <p>I want to estimate a maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree from this data, with measures of statistical support on each node.</p>
  <p>There are many phylogenetics programs that claim to be able to analyse datasets like this (e.g. RAxML, ExaML, IQtree, FastTree, PhyML etc). Given that I have access to a big server (512GB RAM, 56 cores), what are the pros and cons of each program.</p>
  <p>Which programme likely to give me the most accurate estimate of the ML tree for a dataset of this size within a reasonable timeframe?</p>
   45: <p><a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0027731" rel="nofollow noreferrer">This paper claims</a> that FastTree is almost as accurate as RAxML, while being much faster. You just have to be careful, however, that the support values output by FastTree are not bootstrap values, they are <a href="http://www.microbesonline.org/fasttree/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">based on the Shimodaira-Hasegawa test</a>. (Also, <a href="http://darlinglab.org/blog/2015/03/23/not-so-fast-fasttree.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">see this comment</a> for the case you have very short branch lengths).   [<strong>update:</strong> However, according to <a href="http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/25/142323" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the recent comparison paper mentioned below</a> FastTree performed quite poorly in comparison to RAxML or IQ-tree.]</p>
  
  <p>From what I understand, you should use ExaML only if your data is too large to be handled by RAxML in a single node. ExaML should perform like RAxML but with some parallelization overhead. For all effects I treat them as the same. I don't know of relevant advantages of phyML over RAxML (for me, it's easier to use but I am very used to phyML).</p>
  
  <p>I am not familiar with IQ-tree, but <a href="https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/molbev/msu300" rel="nofollow noreferrer">its authors claim</a> that even given the same time as RAxML or phyML, IQ-tree already finds better likelihoods more often than not (although by default it takes a bit longer to converge). <a href="http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/25/142323" rel="nofollow noreferrer">A recent comparison between all these programs</a> favoured IQ-TREE for both single-gene and concatenation analyses (with RAxML very close). It may also estimate branch support through a SH-like test only, but I'm not sure.   [<strong>update:</strong> IQ-tree offers 3 measures of support, standard bootstrap, aLRT, and ultrafast bootstrap. See OP's comment below for details.]</p>
  
  <p>However, since you have few missing data, you might also want to try a single-locus tree inference followed by gene tree clustering (using <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1755-0998.12676/abstract" rel="nofollow noreferrer">treescape</a> or <a href="https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/molbev/msw038" rel="nofollow noreferrer">treeCL</a>) to see how spread your data is, or to see the effect of removal of outliers, or to use ideas similar to <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0129183" rel="nofollow noreferrer">statistical binning</a>.</p>
  