Float

Name: Float
Brand: Float.com
Rating: 4.4 (3706 reviews)

Float is a resource management and scheduling platform that provides a live visual schedule with drag-and-drop allocations, capacity planning and time-off management, and (on higher tiers) time tracking and estimates-vs-actuals reporting for margin visibility in client delivery teams.

Est 2011|59 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 26K|Web traffic 29K|FTEs 57|HQ Upper Austria, AT

01Competitive Landscape

| Aspect | Float (vendor site) | Resource Guru | Runn | |--------|---------------------|---------------|------| | Starting Price | Published per-scheduled-person entry-tier pricing (vendor-published) | Published per-person entry-tier pricing on vendor pages | Published pricing varies by plan and licensing model | | Best For | Agencies and professional services needing visual scheduling, capacity planning, and basic actuals/financial visibility | Teams wanting straightforward scheduling and optional timesheets with tiered packaging | Teams seeking resource and capacity planning with a licensing model differentiated by resource-seat vs user-seat | | Key Strength | Visual schedule and capacity planning focus; integrations and API support | Simple scheduling UX and clear tiered packaging; SSO on higher tiers | Different licensing approach aimed at certain cost profiles and planning workflows | | Key Weakness | Aggregated review summaries indicate limited reporting depth and potential UI/performance issues at scale | Per-person pricing can accumulate for large organizations; feature depth may be below full PSA suites | Vendor-authored comparisons can be biased; differentiation depends on workflows and licensing needs | - Direct competitors and their key differentiators - Resource Guru - Positioned around scheduling simplicity and optional timesheets; highlights include tiered packaging and enterprise features on higher tiers. - Runn - Positions licensing around a resource-seat based model rather than all-user licensing, which can be cost-efficient for organizations with many viewers and relatively few schedulable resources. - Kantata (PSA suite) - Represents an end-to-end PSA platform that includes resource, project, and financial controls; typically requires deeper implementation effort than a focused resourcing tool. - Feature comparison: where Float excels vs lags behind - Excels - Visual scheduling and capacity planning as a central workflow. - Time tracking that can prefill from scheduled work to reduce timesheet effort. - Integration options: native integrations, connectors, and a public API for custom workflows. - Lags (based on review synthesis) - Reporting depth and analytics sophistication when compared with tools focused on complex forecasting and BI. - Usability and performance concerns for very large datasets and team sizes. - Pricing comparison: value vs alternatives - Float is positioned in the mid-range of the category based on published per-scheduled-person tiers. - Some competitors may offer lower entry-tier nominal prices or different licensing constructs that alter total cost depending on the organization's composition of viewers vs scheduled resources. - Market share and adoption trends - The vendor reports adoption by several thousand teams globally. - Review counts across public platforms indicate meaningful adoption, but review-platform populations are not equivalent to market share and should be interpreted cautiously.

01Competitive Landscape

Aspect	Float (vendor site)	Resource Guru	Runn
Starting Price	Published per-scheduled-person entry-tier pricing (vendor-published)	Published per-person entry-tier pricing on vendor pages	Published pricing varies by plan and licensing model
Best For	Agencies and professional services needing visual scheduling, capacity planning, and basic actuals/financial visibility	Teams wanting straightforward scheduling and optional timesheets with tiered packaging	Teams seeking resource and capacity planning with a licensing model differentiated by resource-seat vs user-seat
Key Strength	Visual schedule and capacity planning focus; integrations and API support	Simple scheduling UX and clear tiered packaging; SSO on higher tiers	Different licensing approach aimed at certain cost profiles and planning workflows
Key Weakness	Aggregated review summaries indicate limited reporting depth and potential UI/performance issues at scale	Per-person pricing can accumulate for large organizations; feature depth may be below full PSA suites	Vendor-authored comparisons can be biased; differentiation depends on workflows and licensing needs

Direct competitors and their key differentiators
- Resource Guru
  - Positioned around scheduling simplicity and optional timesheets; highlights include tiered packaging and enterprise features on higher tiers.
- Runn
  - Positions licensing around a resource-seat based model rather than all-user licensing, which can be cost-efficient for organizations with many viewers and relatively few schedulable resources.
- Kantata (PSA suite)
  - Represents an end-to-end PSA platform that includes resource, project, and financial controls; typically requires deeper implementation effort than a focused resourcing tool.
Feature comparison: where Float excels vs lags behind
- Excels
  - Visual scheduling and capacity planning as a central workflow.
  - Time tracking that can prefill from scheduled work to reduce timesheet effort.
  - Integration options: native integrations, connectors, and a public API for custom workflows.
- Lags (based on review synthesis)
  - Reporting depth and analytics sophistication when compared with tools focused on complex forecasting and BI.
  - Usability and performance concerns for very large datasets and team sizes.
Pricing comparison: value vs alternatives
- Float is positioned in the mid-range of the category based on published per-scheduled-person tiers.
- Some competitors may offer lower entry-tier nominal prices or different licensing constructs that alter total cost depending on the organization's composition of viewers vs scheduled resources.
Market share and adoption trends
- The vendor reports adoption by several thousand teams globally.
- Review counts across public platforms indicate meaningful adoption, but review-platform populations are not equivalent to market share and should be interpreted cautiously.

Aspect

Float (vendor site)

Resource Guru

Runn

Starting Price

Published per-scheduled-person entry-tier pricing (vendor-published)

Published per-person entry-tier pricing on vendor pages

Published pricing varies by plan and licensing model

Best For

Agencies and professional services needing visual scheduling, capacity planning, and basic actuals/financial visibility

Teams wanting straightforward scheduling and optional timesheets with tiered packaging

Teams seeking resource and capacity planning with a licensing model differentiated by resource-seat vs user-seat

Key Strength

Visual schedule and capacity planning focus; integrations and API support

Simple scheduling UX and clear tiered packaging; SSO on higher tiers

Different licensing approach aimed at certain cost profiles and planning workflows

Key Weakness

Aggregated review summaries indicate limited reporting depth and potential UI/performance issues at scale

Per-person pricing can accumulate for large organizations; feature depth may be below full PSA suites

Vendor-authored comparisons can be biased; differentiation depends on workflows and licensing needs

Float

01Competitive Landscape

02Market Map

01Competitive Landscape

02Market Map