Best capacity planning software in 2026

Float is worth considering for a visual team schedule, Resource Guru for booking people and equipment, Runn for capacity and financial forecasts. Toggl and Teamwork.com combine planning with time tracking or project management. Below, we compare these five options and explain when a spreadsheet supported by tracked hours may be enough.

Capacity planning asks whether you have enough available time for upcoming work. Resource planning assigns people to that work, and scheduling sets dates. The tasks overlap, so check what a tool actually shows before buying it for a capacity forecast.

How does capacity planning differ from resource planning and scheduling?

Capacity planning compares available hours with expected work. Resource planning and scheduling add the people and dates. The table shows the typical focus of each, although teams often use them together.

Capacity planning is the forecast. It works in totals: the design team has 320 available hours in October, the three projects in the pipeline need 410, so either something slips, someone is hired, or a project is declined. Nobody has to be assigned to anything for that arithmetic to work, which is why it can be done a quarter out when the projects are still proposals.

Resource planning is the commitment. Once the work is won, someone decides that Ana is on the rebrand for three weeks and Tom is on the audit, and the resource plan shows Ana at 110 percent in week two. It is the same grid one level down, and most of the tools below do both, but the capacity question has to be answered first or the resource plan is an exercise in moving overload from one person to another.

Scheduling puts tasks in order and assigns dates, often using a calendar or Gantt chart. It overlaps with capacity planning, but a schedule alone may not show whether the team has enough available hours to do the work.

Why capacity planning starts with knowing where the hours went

A capacity plan is a forecast, and a forecast is only as good as the actuals it is calibrated against. The plan says the audit needs 80 hours because the last three audits took 70, 85 and 90. It says Ana has 32 available hours a week because tracking shows she averages 8 hours a week on internal work. Without those numbers the plan is a guess with a grid around it, and the grid makes the guess look more certain than it is.

Recent time records help you estimate how much time is available after meetings and admin, how long similar projects take, and where previous estimates were wrong. Leave, working schedules and future commitments matter too. Historical hours are useful evidence, not a guarantee that the next project will follow the same pattern.

Start with the information you have, make the assumptions visible and update the plan as work progresses. You can begin planning before you have months of time records, then improve the estimates as you collect them.

How we compared these tools

• Capacity needs. We compare how the tools show available hours against planned work, alongside scheduling and reporting features.
• Planned and recorded hours. We look at whether tracked time can be compared with estimates, so teams can use completed work to improve future plans.
• Ratings and reviews. Ratings and review themes come from each product's Capterra page, read in full rather than summarised from memory. Each entry links the page it came from. Where a product has few reviews, the entry says so.
• Pricing. From each vendor's pricing page where published. Runn and Float show part of their pricing on the page and the rest after a conversation; the entries say what was visible.
• Order. Dedicated planning tools come first, followed by products that combine planning with tracking or project management. Timen is covered separately as a source of time records.

Capacity planning software comparison table

Best capacity planning software in 2026

1. Float: the clearest capacity view for agencies and studios

Best for: Agencies and studios that want one screen showing who is overbooked and who has time available, week by week.

• Pricing: Per person, billed annually. The pricing page quotes two plan levels at $84 and $144 per person per year, with time tracking on the higher one
• Rating: 4.5/5 on Capterra from 1,621 reviews

Float is the tool most people picture when they say capacity planning: people down the left, weeks across the top, coloured blocks of allocated hours, and a capacity line per person that turns red when the blocks exceed it. It does the team-level forecast well, with a capacity report that rolls up by department or role so you can see that design is at 115 percent in November before you know who specifically is overloaded. Time tracking is built in on the higher tier, so planned against actual is native rather than imported.

The limit is that it is a planning tool first and a tracker second: the timer is adequate rather than good, and teams that already track elsewhere usually keep doing so and import. It is also a per-person cost for everyone on the schedule, including people who never open it.

Pros

• The cleanest week-by-week capacity view on this list.
• Capacity reports by role and department, a quarter out.
• Planned against actual with built-in or imported time.
• A visual schedule for allocating hours across the team.

Cons

• Per-person pricing for everyone scheduled, not only planners.
• The built-in timer is basic next to a dedicated tracker.

What users say about Float

2. Resource Guru: people, rooms and equipment on one schedule

Best for: Teams that book equipment, rooms or vehicles alongside people, and want capacity and availability in one place.

• Pricing: Grasshopper $5, Blackbelt $8 and Master $12 per person per month billed annually, with other resources such as rooms and equipment at half the person rate
• Rating: 4.7/5 on Capterra from 541 reviews

Resource Guru is a booking system that does capacity planning as a consequence. Each person and resource has availability, bookings go against it, and the tool refuses to overbook unless you tell it to, which is a different discipline from Float's red line: Float shows you the overload, Resource Guru queues it as a waiting list. Capacity reports and utilisation arrive on Blackbelt and above, and time tracking against bookings is built in.

It is the pick for production companies, labs, training providers and anyone whose constraint is a room or a rig as much as a person. For a pure knowledge-work team the equipment side is unused and Float's view is clearer.

Pros

• People, rooms and equipment on the same availability model.
• Overbooking is caught at booking time, not in a report afterwards.
• Lowest published entry price of the dedicated tools here.
• Utilisation and capacity reports on the middle tier.

Cons

• Reports are on Blackbelt and above, not the entry tier.
• Less of a forward capacity forecast than a booking calendar.

What users say about Resource Guru

3. Runn: capacity, revenue and margin forecasts

Best for: Consultancies and agencies whose capacity question is really a revenue and margin question.

• Pricing: A free plan for small teams and paid plans per person, shown on the pricing page
• Rating: 4.8/5 on Capterra, from a small base of 33 reviews

Runn attaches a rate and a cost to every planned hour, so the capacity chart doubles as a revenue forecast: this is what the quarter earns if the plan holds, this is the margin, this is what happens if the tentative project does not land. Tentative projects let you compare possible outcomes: you can see the team at 130 percent if everything in the pipeline closes and at 85 percent if half of it does. Timesheets are built in and feed actuals back into the forecast.

Runn is worth considering when the planning discussion includes revenue and margin. If you only need to see who is free next week, those financial views may be unnecessary.

Pros

• Capacity, revenue and margin on the same forecast.
• Tentative projects show the range of outcomes, not one number.
• Timesheets built in, feeding actuals back into the plan.
• A free plan to start on.

Cons

• More setup than Float; rates and costs have to be right first.
• The finance views are overhead for a team that only needs the schedule.

What users say about Runn

4. Toggl: capacity planning bundled with the tracker

Best for: Teams already on Toggl that want capacity signals from the hours they are tracking anyway.

• Pricing: Free for up to 3 users; Starter $9 and Premium $16 per user per month billed annually. Capacity basics on Starter, capacity monitoring and workload on Premium
• Rating: 4.7/5 on Capterra from 2,589 reviews

Toggl folded its planning product into its tracker in 2026 and now describes itself as time tracking with capacity management. The Starter plan carries the capacity basics: PTO, public holidays, flexible working hours and a timeline filtered by team member. Premium adds the capacity monitoring, workload and profitability views, and individual over and under capacity. Because the tracker and the plan are one product, planned against actual is native.

For a team considering Toggl, the combined tracking and planning features may remove the need for a separate tool. Compare the workload views with the forecast you need before assuming they replace a dedicated planner.

Pros

• Tracking and planning in one product, with recorded hours available for comparison.
• Capacity basics on Starter for a modest per-seat price.
• Familiar to a large number of teams already.
• Timeline, milestones and PTO handling included.

Cons

• The real capacity monitoring is Premium.
• Shorter forecast horizon than the dedicated tools; no tentative project modelling.

What users say about Toggl

5. Teamwork.com: capacity inside client project management

Best for: Agencies that want capacity planning inside the tool that already holds the client projects and the time.

• Pricing: Free plan; Deliver $10.99 and Grow $19.99 per user per month billed annually, $13.99 and $25.99 monthly
• Rating: 4.5/5 on Capterra from 941 reviews

Teamwork.com is project management for client work with time tracking and a workload planner built in, so capacity is derived from the tasks already estimated and assigned. The workload view shows each person's planned hours against their capacity by day and week, and the resource scheduler on the Grow tier lets you allocate ahead. Because the tasks, the time and the plan are in one place, it is easier to compare recorded hours with the plan.

It is a capacity view that follows from the project plan rather than a forecast you build first, which suits a team whose work is always broken into estimated tasks. A team that plans capacity a quarter out before the work is scoped should check how well it supports early estimates.

Pros

• Capacity derived from the estimated tasks already in the project.
• Time tracking and billing in the same tool.
• Workload view by person, day and week.
• Free plan for very small teams.

Cons

• Task-based workload views depend on useful estimates and assignments.
• The resource scheduler is on the Grow tier.

What users say about Teamwork.com

When a time tracker and spreadsheet may be enough

Best for: Teams that do not know where their hours go yet, and need that before any capacity plan will be right.

• Pricing: Free, every feature included

Timen is our time tracker. It records hours by person, client and project, with reports and exports you can use in a spreadsheet. It does not forecast capacity or allocate future work. Its role here is to help you compare previous work with your next estimate.

For example, a small team could review the hours spent on its last few projects, estimate the work coming next month and compare that with each person's available time. Timen can provide the recorded hours; a spreadsheet or planning tool holds the forecast. You still need to account for leave, meetings and changes in scope.

Pros

• Recorded hours by person and project to inform estimates.
• Reports by person, project and period, exportable to a spreadsheet plan.
• Free tracking for the whole team.
• Invoices from tracked billable hours, if you also need client billing.

Cons

• No forecast, no allocation grid, no capacity view. It tracks; it does not plan.
• The planning step happens in a spreadsheet or another tool.

An example of using time records in a plan

When is a spreadsheet enough?

A spreadsheet can be enough when you can keep the plan current without much manual work. Put people or roles in rows, weeks in columns, and compare available hours with planned hours. Consider these three conditions.

• A manageable team size. You can review everyone's workload without overlooking conflicts. Small teams are often easier to handle this way, but there is no fixed headcount cutoff.
• A manageable planning period. The work is clear enough to estimate, and you can show uncertain projects separately from confirmed commitments.
• Useful estimates. Recorded hours from similar work help. Where you lack that history, state your assumptions and revise them as the work progresses.

Consider a dedicated planner when frequent changes, shared editing or several possible project scenarios make the spreadsheet difficult to maintain. The reason to switch is the work involved in keeping a useful plan, not a particular team size.

Which capacity planning software should you choose?

You want a visual view of team workloads → Float.

You book rooms and equipment too → Resource Guru.

The capacity question is a margin question → Runn. Tentative projects, revenue and cost on the same forecast.

You already track in Toggl → Toggl's Starter or Premium capacity features, before buying a second tool.

Your work is already estimated tasks in a PM tool → Teamwork.com, where capacity follows from the plan.

You need better estimates before buying a planner → Review tracked hours from a tool such as Timen and start with a spreadsheet.

Conclusion

Choose a capacity tool around the decisions you need to make: allocating hours, matching skills, scheduling equipment or forecasting revenue. Then compare planned hours with completed work regularly. The software makes a plan easier to maintain; reliable estimates still need review.

If a spreadsheet can handle those decisions, start there. Add a dedicated planner when keeping the plan current becomes too much work.