Best Resource Management and Capacity Planning Software 2026: Float vs Resource Guru vs Saviom vs Mavenlink
Disclosure: Some links on this page are affiliate links. If you purchase through them, we may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. Full affiliate disclosure.
Every project manager knows the feeling: you open your resource planning spreadsheet, scan across the week, and realize that Dave is somehow scheduled for 14 hours of work every day Monday through Friday. He's on three critical-path projects simultaneously. Two of those projects have milestones due this week. Dave is going to burn out, or two of those projects are going to slip, or both.
Resource management — actually knowing who's available to work on what, and when — is the hardest operational problem in project management. PM tools do a decent job tracking what work exists. Very few do a good job tracking who is supposed to do that work and whether they have the capacity.
This guide compares seven dedicated resource management and capacity planning tools against a modeled 50-person professional services firm with multiple concurrent projects, shared resources, and variable utilization targets. Here's which tools actually prevent overallocation — and which just make it visible after it's already happened.
📊 How We Compared
Each platform was reviewed against a modeled 50-person professional services organization — 10 concurrent projects with varying resource requirements — using vendor documentation covering scheduling, conflict resolution, utilization reporting, and capacity forecasting. Administrator and team member experience reflects published feature documentation and published documentation.
Editor’s take: Scheduling and capacity planning are sold as one feature and they are not. Float and Resource Guru schedule well - at $6 and $4 they are the only two that do it properly - while Kantata at $40-$60 and Saviom at $20-$40 are the ones that model capacity. Paying $40 a seat for a schedule available at $4 is the most common mistake here, so name the problem before comparing prices.
Editor's Take
Capacity planning fails when it is maintained separately from where work actually lives, because the data goes stale within weeks. Look for tools that read from your existing project system or make updating trivially fast. The value is in spotting over-allocation before it happens, not in producing a prettier chart after the fact.
The Difference Between Scheduling and Capacity Planning
Resource management tools come in two flavors, and understanding the difference is critical to choosing the right one:
Resource scheduling answers the question 'who is doing what this week?' It's a detailed, short-term view — akin to a staffing roster for projects. Tools like Float and Resource Guru excel at this. You see a timeline view with each person's assigned tasks, their availability, and conflicts. The time horizon is typically 1-4 weeks.
Capacity planning answers the question 'can we take on this new project given our current commitments?' It's a higher-level, longer-term view. Tools like Saviom and Mavenlink (now Kantata) excel at this. You see projected utilization rates, skill gaps, and the impact of adding or removing projects from the portfolio. The time horizon is typically 3-12 months.
Both are important, but they serve different needs. A creative agency with rapidly changing project needs may prioritize scheduling. An engineering firm with long-term contracts may prioritize capacity planning. The best tools provide both, but most specialize in one.
Platform Comparison
Pricing note: the figures in this guide are the vendors' published list prices as of September 2026. This page covers Resource Management and Capacity Planning Software. Vendors change pricing without notice, so treat these numbers as a starting point and confirm current pricing with the vendor before you buy.
| Platform | Best For | Price | Scheduling | Capacity | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Float | Resource scheduling + team visibility | $6/user/mo | ★★★★★ | ★★★☆☆ | ★★★★★ |
| Resource Guru | Simple team scheduling | $4/user/mo | ★★★★★ | ★★☆☆☆ | ★★★★☆ |
| Kantata (Mavenlink) | Professional services automation | $40-60/user/mo | ★★★★☆ | ★★★★★ | ★★★★★ |
| Saviom | Enterprise capacity planning | Custom ($20-40/user/mo) | ★★★☆☆ | ★★★★★ | ★★★★☆ |
| Harvest Forecast | Budget-aligned scheduling | $5/user/mo | ★★★★☆ | ★★★☆☆ | ★★★★☆ |
| Hub Planner | Mid-market with timesheets | $7/user/mo | ★★★★☆ | ★★★★☆ | ★★★★☆ |
| Teamdeck | Simple availability tracking | $3.99/user/mo | ★★★☆☆ | ★★☆☆☆ | ★★★☆☆ |
Float: The Best Scheduling Tool
Float has become the default resource scheduling tool for agencies and consultancies, and it's easy to see why. The interface is a clean timeline view showing who's working on what, color-coded by project. You can drag to schedule, split allocations across projects (Dave is 50% on Project A and 50% on Project B this week), and see utilization percentages per person and per project.
What sets Float apart is the balance between power and simplicity. It handles complex scheduling scenarios — part-time employees, contractors with limited availability, timezone differences, public holidays — without feeling complex to use. The learning curve is measured in minutes, not days. This matters because resource scheduling only works if people actually use the tool, and people use Float because it's not painful.
The limitation: Float is a scheduling tool, not a capacity planning tool. It shows you who is allocated now and in the near future. It doesn't do scenario modeling ('what if we win this $200K project — do we need to hire?'), skills-based capacity analysis, or long-term forecasting. For those capabilities, you need Kantata or Saviom alongside Float.
Kantata (formerly Mavenlink): The Professional Services Powerhouse
Kantata (formed by the merger of Mavenlink and Kimble) is the most complete tool in this comparison, and it's priced accordingly at $40-60/user/month. It's not just resource management — it's a full professional services automation platform that includes project management, resource planning, time tracking, billing, and business intelligence.
The resource management module does something that lighter tools don't: skills-based matching. You can define skills (e.g., 'React development, senior level, healthcare industry experience') and the system will recommend resources based on skill fit, not just availability. For organizations with specialized workforces, this is useful. It means you're matching the right person to the right project, not just any available person.
The capacity planning features include scenario modeling (create hypothetical project portfolios and see resource impacts), utilization forecasting (predict future utilization based on pipeline), and gap analysis (identify skill shortages before they cause project delays). These are capabilities that genuinely help organizations make better business decisions — not just track who's busy.
The trade-off: Kantata is complex to implement and expensive. It makes sense for professional services organizations with 50+ billable resources and significant project revenue at stake. For smaller teams or organizations that just need scheduling, Float or Resource Guru are better choices.
Resource Guru and Harvest Forecast: The Lightweight Alternatives
Resource Guru is Float's simpler, cheaper cousin. At $4/user/month, it provides a clean scheduling timeline with drag-and-drop allocation, clash detection, and availability management. It doesn't do capacity planning or reporting at Float's level, but for a team that just needs to know who's available and when, it's perfectly adequate.
Harvest Forecast integrates with Harvest time tracking, which is a significant advantage if you already use Harvest. Forecast pulls actual time data from timesheets and uses it to inform future scheduling — if last month's estimate was 40 hours and actual was 60, Forecast adjusts future estimates for similar work. This feedback loop between estimates and actuals is something standalone scheduling tools can't do.
The trade-off: Harvest Forecast's scheduling interface is less polished than Float's, and its capacity planning features are basic. It's best for teams that already use Harvest and value the time-tracking integration more than pure scheduling excellence.
Float is the best resource scheduling tool for most teams. It's easy to use, handles the scheduling scenarios most teams face, and the price is reasonable. Resource Guru is the budget option for simple scheduling. Kantata (Mavenlink) is the complete choice for professional services organizations that need skills-based matching, scenario modeling, and financial integration. If you currently use spreadsheets for resource management, any of these tools will be a significant improvement — but Float's ease of use means it's the one your team is most likely to actually adopt and maintain.
Scheduling and capacity planning are not the same purchase
The single most common mistake in this category is paying $40 a seat for something available at $4, which is why naming the problem has to come before comparing prices. Scheduling asks who is doing what on Tuesday. Capacity planning asks whether you have the people to do everything you have committed to over the next quarter. They overlap, and buying the expensive form of the cheap question wastes real money.
Float represents scheduling done well. Its published pricing sits around $4/user/month for a clean scheduling timeline with drag-and-drop allocation, clash detection and availability management. Teams whose real complaint is double-booking and unclear near-term allocation should probably stop reading here — that is the whole problem, and this solves it at the lowest cost in the category.
Kantata represents the professional services case. Formerly Mavenlink, it connects resource planning to project accounting, forecasting and utilisation for organisations that sell people's time. For a services firm whose revenue depends on utilisation and whose projects have budgets, that integration is the product. For anyone else it is a great deal of machinery bought for one dashboard.
Resource Guru and Harvest Forecast are the lightweight alternative. Both cover scheduling with forecasting lite, typically at a fraction of enterprise pricing. They suit organisations that need to see forward a few weeks without buying a forecasting engine.
How each level is wrong for someone
An enterprise platform is wrong below roughly two hundred billable people. Utilisation forecasting needs a resourcing function to operate it. Without one, nobody configures it and the forecasts are ignored.
A pure scheduler is wrong when the real question is hiring. Scheduling cannot tell you that you need four more engineers by March. If that is the question, capacity tooling is required and $4 seats will not answer it.
A lightweight tool is wrong when integration with finance matters. If resource plans must reconcile with project budgets and revenue recognition, resources planning and accounting have to share a system.
All of them are wrong without trustworthy source data. Every forecast is downstream of accurate allocation. Teams that do not maintain schedules get elaborate models built on fiction.
Name the problem, then buy
- Is the question short-term or forward-looking? "Who is busy this week" is scheduling at roughly $4. "Do we have enough people in Q2" is capacity planning at much more.
- Does this need to reconcile with project finances? If yes, the professional services platforms are the only serious answer.
- How many billable people, and who operates the tool? Below two hundred heads without a dedicated resourcing owner, the enterprise tier will not produce value.
- Are your current allocations accurate? If not, fix that first. Better tooling applied to bad data produces confident wrong answers.
Sequence matters here: fix the allocation data, then name the question honestly, then buy the cheapest tier that answers it. Doing it in that order is usually the difference between a tool that changes decisions and one that generates reports nobody opens.
