Connecteam

Name: Connecteam
Brand: Connecteam
Rating: 4.6 (9192 reviews)

Leader

One app. One place. One way of working.

Est 2016|Valuation $800M|Raised $168.6M|108 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 39K|Web traffic 2.8M|FTEs 530|HQ New York, New York, US

MarketsHuman Resource Information Systems (HRIS)Time, Attendance, & Leave Management

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative competitive analysis

Connecteam vs Homebase - Homebase emphasizes per-location pricing and can be less expensive for large hourly teams concentrated at a single site because costs do not scale linearly by headcount in the same way. - Connecteam's block-based hub structure can be cost-effective for teams that fit within those blocks and require multiple feature areas. Connecteam vs When I Work - When I Work uses transparent per-user pricing and includes API/webhooks and SSO at higher tiers. - Connecteam can be cost-effective for organizations up to certain headcounts depending on hub selection, but costs may increase when multiple hubs are required. Market adoption signals - Review activity on major platforms and customer figures cited in press materials indicate adoption within the SMB/midmarket deskless workforce segment, but buyers should validate applicability to their specific context.

	Connecteam	Homebase	When I Work
Starting Price	Free tier for very small teams; paid hubs start at entry-level monthly pricing for small teams (annual billing common)	Free tier available; paid plans commonly priced per location (varies by plan)	Per-user monthly pricing for scheduling; higher tiers add time tracking and SSO
Primary use case	Deskless teams seeking a combined set of operations, communications, and basic HR features in a single mobile app	Single-location or per-location operations seeking predictable per-location pricing and integrated payroll add-ons	Scheduling-centric teams seeking transparent per-user scheduling pricing with optional time tracking & SSO in higher tiers
Primary strengths	Broad feature set (scheduling, tasks, forms, training, comms) within a single application; strong presence on major review platforms	Per-location pricing model that can be cost-effective for single-site operations; payroll integration available	Clear tiering for scheduling; API/webhooks and SAML/SSO available in higher tiers
Primary weaknesses	Modular hub structure can complicate pricing; user reports of app stability and admin complexity; API access can be tier-gated	Feature depth may be narrower for HR/training needs; add-ons increase total cost	Less comprehensive HR/training capabilities compared with broader workforce platforms; add-on pricing changes effective price

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative competitive analysis

Connecteam vs Homebase

Homebase emphasizes per-location pricing and can be less expensive for large hourly teams concentrated at a single site because costs do not scale linearly by headcount in the same way.
Connecteam's block-based hub structure can be cost-effective for teams that fit within those blocks and require multiple feature areas.

Connecteam vs When I Work

When I Work uses transparent per-user pricing and includes API/webhooks and SSO at higher tiers.
Connecteam can be cost-effective for organizations up to certain headcounts depending on hub selection, but costs may increase when multiple hubs are required.

Market adoption signals

Review activity on major platforms and customer figures cited in press materials indicate adoption within the SMB/midmarket deskless workforce segment, but buyers should validate applicability to their specific context.

	Connecteam	Homebase	When I Work
Starting Price	Free tier for very small teams; paid hubs start at entry-level monthly pricing for small teams (annual billing common)	Free tier available; paid plans commonly priced per location (varies by plan)	Per-user monthly pricing for scheduling; higher tiers add time tracking and SSO
Primary use case	Deskless teams seeking a combined set of operations, communications, and basic HR features in a single mobile app	Single-location or per-location operations seeking predictable per-location pricing and integrated payroll add-ons	Scheduling-centric teams seeking transparent per-user scheduling pricing with optional time tracking & SSO in higher tiers
Primary strengths	Broad feature set (scheduling, tasks, forms, training, comms) within a single application; strong presence on major review platforms	Per-location pricing model that can be cost-effective for single-site operations; payroll integration available	Clear tiering for scheduling; API/webhooks and SAML/SSO available in higher tiers
Primary weaknesses	Modular hub structure can complicate pricing; user reports of app stability and admin complexity; API access can be tier-gated	Feature depth may be narrower for HR/training needs; add-ons increase total cost	Less comprehensive HR/training capabilities compared with broader workforce platforms; add-on pricing changes effective price