Float alternatives: for teams that want the schedule to build itself
Updated July 2026
Float is one of the best visual resource schedulers on the market, and for many teams it is exactly right. This guide is for the teams that hit its ceiling: you are still building every schedule by hand, and the tool lets you overbook people with nothing but a warning.
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 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.
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.
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.
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. Stasis is for teams that want the plan produced and maintained for them.
Stasis builds the schedule the others display.
Stasis plans every person's week automatically and measures utilisation, capacity and margin while it does it. Early access is opening soon, and the waitlist goes first.
Researched June 2026. Prices and features are as published by each vendor at that time; check their sites for current details.