8 Float alternatives for scheduling teams, compared

What Float does well

• Best-in-class visual scheduling: fast drag-and-drop bookings with start, end and duration on each block.
• Honest pricing per scheduled person rather than per account.
• Native two-way Google and Outlook calendar sync, which many rivals still lack.

If a skilled coordinator drags the blocks and the team is stable, Float is hard to beat. The reasons teams go looking for alternatives are structural, not quality problems:

• Everything is manual. Every booking, every reshuffle after a sick day, every rebalance is a human dragging rectangles. The tool shows the schedule; a person still has to produce it.
• Overbooking is only a warning. Float flags an overloaded person with a red bar and lets you book them anyway. Under deadline pressure, warnings lose.
• No generated daily plan. People see bookings, not an hour-by-hour "do this next" day built from the work you owe.

The eight alternatives at a glance

The middle column is the one that compounds. Six of these charge per person, so every hire raises the bill. Teambook charges per project with unlimited users, and Stasis charges per manager, which means in both cases growing the team costs nothing extra. On a team heading from 10 people to 30, that difference outweighs almost any per seat discount you can negotiate.

The alternatives, honestly compared

Resource Guru (from roughly USD 4 to 10 per person per month): the value pick. Clean capacity heatmaps and an "hours available" lens managers love. Scheduling is fully manual, and like Float it warns about clashes rather than preventing overbooking.

Teamdeck (Full Member USD 6 per month, or USD 5.40 billed yearly; Light Member USD 2, or USD 1.80 yearly; as published August 2026): the cheapest per person on this page, and the only one with a genuinely useful two tier seat model. People who need to be scheduled but not to run the schedule sit on a Light seat at a third of the price, which makes it unusually affordable for a large team with a few coordinators. It bundles time tracking, timesheets and leave alongside the scheduling. The plan is still drawn by a person, and the price advantage narrows if most of your team needs full access.

Runn (roughly USD 7 to 11 per seat, 20-seat minimum): the forecasting pick. Strong capacity and financial projections, and SmartMatch suggests who could take work by skills and availability. It recommends; it does not build or maintain the schedule for you.

Hub Planner (roughly USD 7 to 54 per resource): resourcing depth plus timesheets and approvals for larger teams. Scheduling remains drag-and-drop, and the deeper tiers get expensive.

Productive (Essential USD 10 and Professional USD 25 per user per month, both billed yearly, as published August 2026): the widest scope here, and the one to look at if scheduling is really a symptom of not knowing whether the work is profitable. It puts resource planning next to budgets, invoicing and financial forecasting, so a project manager can see margin and capacity in the same place. That breadth is also the catch: it is a firm-wide operations platform to adopt, not a scheduling tool to slot in, and the planning it does is allocation across a date range rather than a timed day.

Mosaic (roughly USD 10 to 15 per user): markets AI workload management, and it genuinely re-forecasts hours and flags over- and under-utilisation as things change. What it adjusts are allocations and forecasts, not a timed daily plan a person can follow.

Teambook (EUR 2 per project per month with unlimited users, plus EUR 1 each for the Capacity and Timesheet add-ons, 30 day trial, as published August 2026): the outlier on pricing, and worth a look purely for that. You pay for projects, not people, so a growing team costs nothing more and you can pull clients and subcontractors in as guests without buying them seats. It is deliberately simple, which is the point and also the limit: fewer reporting and forecasting features than Runn or Productive, and capacity is a paid add-on rather than a core view.

The gap the whole category shares

Every tool above, Float included, plans at the allocation level: hours per day or percent of capacity, spread across a date range, maintained by hand. In our research across sixteen resource-management products, none of them generated a clock-time daily timetable from man-hour estimates, and none refused to overbook a person. Those two things are the difference between software that displays your plan and software that does the planning.

If you want the schedule to build itself

That gap is what Stasis is built for. You give it the jobs you owe and rough man-hour estimates. It builds every person an hour-by-hour daily plan, reflows everyone affected when something changes (a sick day, a late file, an urgent job), and it will not overbook a human being: when work genuinely cannot fit, it asks the manager one question with the ways out attached. Pricing is per manager rather than per seat, so hiring more team members does not raise the bill.

To be fair in the other direction: if you want full manual control over a visual board, Stasis is not trying to be that, and Float will make you happier. If you need margin and invoicing beside the plan, Productive covers more ground. And if the cheapest possible per person price is the deciding factor, Teamdeck wins on that number. Stasis is for teams that want the plan produced and maintained for them.

Resource Guru, Runn, Hub Planner and Mosaic were researched in June 2026. Teamdeck, Productive and Teambook were added and priced in August 2026. Every figure is the price that vendor published on its own site on that date, for the billing term stated. Vendors change pricing without notice, so confirm before you decide. All product names are trademarks of their respective owners, and Stasis is not affiliated with or endorsed by any of them.