10 Best Float Alternatives & Competitors 2026

monday.com often comes up when teams want to move beyond just seeing availability and start managing the actual work in the same place. It’s common with growing agencies or internal teams that want schedules, tasks, and reporting tied together. Buyers usually assume they’re okay spending time designing boards and workflows up front. After go-live, some teams realize they’re maintaining structure as much as using it, especially compared to Float’s lighter setup.

How it differs from Float

• monday.com combines planning and tasks, reducing the need for separate tools alongside Float.
• Scheduling is flexible but becomes messy without strong rules.
• Reporting is deeper than Float if boards stay clean.
• Float is faster for capacity views; monday.com focuses on execution.
• Teams that want “one tool to run work” usually accept the extra setup overhead.

Overall Score & Reviews Summary

Asana shows up when teams feel Float stops at planning and doesn’t help enough with execution and accountability. It’s popular with mid-sized teams that care about clarity of work more than perfect capacity math. Buyers usually assume resourcing will be handled loosely or outside the system. Over time, teams sometimes miss Float’s clean visibility when trying to answer “who’s overloaded.”

How it differs from Float

• Asana centers on tasks and ownership, while Float centers on time and availability, which changes how planning conversations happen.
• Capacity views exist but are secondary, so it works if rough balance is enough.
• Asana scales well for cross-team work, something Float isn’t built for.
• Float is easier to keep accurate for staffing, whereas Asana relies on discipline.
• Teams focused on delivery clarity usually accept weaker scheduling depth.

Overall Score & Reviews Summary

Close CRM appears when companies realize Float doesn’t connect planning with revenue at all. It’s typically chosen by sales-heavy teams that care more about pipeline than delivery staffing. Buyers assume delivery will live elsewhere or stay lightweight. The trade-off shows up fast if teams try to force Close into operational planning.

How it differs from Float

• Close replaces scheduling with sales visibility, which matters if revenue drives staffing decisions.
• There’s no native resource planning, so it only works if delivery is simple.
• Reporting is strong for sales, not for workload balance.
• Float remains better once fulfillment complexity increases.
• Teams become limited when post-sale operations grow.

Overall Score & Reviews Summary

ClickUp is a common Float alternative for teams trying to consolidate tools. It attracts ops-minded teams that want tasks, docs, time tracking, and planning together. Buyers need to be comfortable configuring and pruning features. After rollout, some teams struggle with consistency because there’s more than one way to do everything.

How it differs from Float

• ClickUp expands far beyond scheduling into execution, documentation, and tracking.
• Resource views exist but depend heavily on setup quality.
• It works well if you want one system, becomes frustrating if simplicity matters most.
• Float stays cleaner for quick staffing decisions.
• Scaling ClickUp often means appointing internal admins.

Overall Score & Reviews Summary

Jira usually replaces Float inside engineering-led organizations. It’s chosen when sprint planning and issue tracking matter more than visual capacity maps. Buyers assume resource planning will be inferred from backlogs. The trade-off is that leadership loses the simple staffing picture Float provides.

How it differs from Float

• Jira plans work through issues and sprints, not people-first schedules.
• Resource visibility is indirect, which works for engineering but not services teams.
• Reporting is powerful but technical.
• Float stays easier for non-technical managers.
• Jira becomes limiting when staffing decisions need clarity fast.

Overall Score & Reviews Summary

Resource Guru comes up when teams want something very close to Float but simpler or cheaper. It’s popular with small teams that only need availability planning. Buyers assume limited customization is fine. Over time, reporting and integrations can feel thin.

How it differs from Float

• Resource Guru focuses almost entirely on schedules.
• Setup is faster but flexibility is lower.
• Works well if needs are stable and simple.
• Float handles growth slightly better.
• Teams outgrow Guru once work complexity increases.

Overall Score & Reviews Summary

Pipedrive replaces Float when planning is driven by deals, not delivery schedules. It’s common in sales-led organizations. Buyers accept that staffing lives elsewhere. The gap shows once fulfillment teams ask for visibility.

How it differs from Float

• Pipedrive centers entirely on pipelines.
• No native resource planning exists.
• Works well if delivery is minimal.
• Float stays necessary for services teams.
• Trade-offs appear as soon as teams scale operations.

HubSpot CRM shows up when teams want sales, marketing, and service data aligned, and Float feels disconnected. It’s chosen by growing companies standardizing on one ecosystem. Buyers assume scheduling will be handled with add-ons or process. Over time, operational planning can feel bolted on.

How it differs from Float

• HubSpot replaces planning with lifecycle visibility.
• Integrations can recreate parts of Float, but not cleanly.
• Works well if CRM is the system of record.
• Float stays better for staffing-heavy teams.
• Complexity rises as teams customize.

Overall Score & Reviews Summary

EngageBay is often chosen by small teams leaving Float for an affordable all-in-one. It fits startups watching spend closely. Buyers assume they’ll accept lighter depth. As teams grow, limits show in reporting and scale.

How it differs from Float

• EngageBay combines CRM and basic operations.
• Resource planning is minimal.
• Works if simplicity and price matter most.
• Float stays stronger for delivery teams.
• Scaling usually forces another switch.

Overall Score & Reviews Summary

Bitrix24 replaces Float when teams want to collapse many tools into one. It’s common with cost-sensitive teams willing to trade simplicity for breadth. Buyers must be okay with complexity. After rollout, adoption can vary widely across teams.

How it differs from Float

• Bitrix24 covers CRM, projects, and ops together.
• Resource planning exists but isn’t the core strength.
• Works if consolidation is the goal.
• Float remains easier to operate daily.
• Governance becomes critical as usage grows.

Overall Score & Reviews Summary