Capacity planning software: the 2026 comparison, by real use case

"Capacity planning" is one of those terms that file two barely-related problems under a single word. On one side, a studio lead who wants to know who is free next Thursday to take on an assignment. On the other, a CIO who has to decide which projects to launch this quarter given the real capacity of their teams. Both are looking for "capacity planning software" — and both end up, rightly, with radically different tools.

So this comparison is organized by use case, not in order of preference: for each tool, the intent it serves best, the list price when there is one, and what the reviews actually say (G2, Capterra). Full transparency: we make AirSaas, which plans capacity at the level of skill groups, by the quarter. So we'll also tell you, in black and white, when another tool is a better fit than ours for your need.

Capacity planning: what are we really talking about?

Capacity planning means comparing the upcoming workload to the capacity actually available, so you can decide what to do about the gap: hire, push back, reallocate — or give up. The question is simple; what changes everything is the scale at which you ask it.

Two complementary levels of capacity

Before comparing ratings, one distinction changes everything: at what level do you plan capacity?

• By skill group, by the quarter (the "macro" level): you plan homogeneous skill groups (a data team, an IT security team…) over a time window shared across the organization — the quarter — and at the deliverable level, to decide across teams what can be delivered together. Because no team delivers alone: this is where you set cross-team priorities. It's the home turf of AirSaas and PPM tools.
• By person, by the month, within the team (the "micro" level): once those priorities are set, each team drops down to individual scheduling — who does what, on which day — over a short horizon, in its execution tools (Float, Jira, Resource Guru…). Float, Runn and Resource Guru are the best on this ground.
• The generalists (monday, Smartsheet, Asana, Microsoft Project) offer a workload view on top of task management — handy if your projects already live there.

The criteria that matter (depending on your use case)

1. The level: are you planning people (by the hour, by the day) or projects (by the quarter, by the portfolio)? Everything flows from that.
2. The input: demand or tasks? A trade-off tool starts from a demand of projects to score; a staffing tool starts from tasks to assign.
3. Adoption: will your teams keep the data up to date? A stale capacity plan is worthless.
4. The decision: does the tool help you make the call in committee (scenarios, Go/No-Go) or does it just display a workload?
5. Integrations: does it respect your execution tools (Jira, monday, Teams…) or force you to re-enter everything?
6. Pricing transparency: a public per-person price signals intent (staffing); "on request" is common on the portfolio side.

The comparison at a glance

Ratings collected on August 25, 2026. Staffing prices in USD, "per person / per seat" (a signal of intent). "n.s." = too few reviews to be significant. "—" = no usable listing.

The function-by-function matrix

The table above compares use case and price; this one compares functions, for the 7 tools dedicated to capacity.

Sources: vendor pages and G2/Capterra listings (September 2026). Fine-grained allocation, a public REST API and a native mobile app vary from one tool to the next and are not all documented: confirm with the vendor based on your need.

By the quarter, across teams: making capacity trade-offs (macro)

Here, the question isn't "who's free Thursday?" but "what can we deliver together this quarter, with the teams we have?" The tools in this family plan skill groups (not individuals), at the deliverable level, and weigh the demand of projects against capacity to make trade-offs across teams in committee.

AirSaas — decision-driven capacity trade-offs

AirSaas plans capacity at the level that most often goes missing: homogeneous skill groups (a data team, IT security…), over a shared time window — the quarter, and at the deliverable level (not the task or the hour). Its "Quarter Plan" weighs the demand of projects (scored, prioritized) against each group's capacity, to decide across teams what can be delivered together — then trace those decisions from one steering committee to the next. It connects to your execution tools (Jira, Asana, monday, Teams…) rather than replacing them. Built in France for mid-market companies (Kiabi, Valrhona, Picoty…), ISO 27001 certified, hosted in France.

• Strengths: demand/capacity trade-offs by the quarter, tooled committee governance (decisions, project weather, attention points), unlimited users (fast adoption), reporting generated in one click.
• Price: public — 60 € excl. tax per active project per month, unlimited users.
• Limits (owned): AirSaas works at the skill group × quarter × deliverable level; person-by-person, day-level scheduling then happens within each team (over ~1 month), with a Float, a Jira or a Resource Guru — once cross-team priorities are set. And a still-young base of public reviews: ask to speak directly with our customers.
• Who it's for: CIOs, PMOs and executive committees who must decide, across teams and by the quarter, what can be delivered together — before each team schedules its people.

Planview ProjectAdvantage & Triskell — capacity inside a full PPM

The two PPM tools we detail in our PPM software comparison include a rich capacity module (scenarios, simulation, fine-grained capacity) within a full suite. Planview ProjectAdvantage (formerly Sciforma, G2 4.2/5 · Capterra 4.4/5) targets enterprise PMOs; Triskell (G2 4.4/5 · Capterra 4.8/5), mid-market and large enterprises after highly advanced configuration. A shared trade-off, confirmed by the reviews: an implementation and administration to budget for. Quote-based pricing.

By the month, within the team: scheduling people (micro)

Once priorities are settled across teams, each team drops down to individual scheduling: who does what, on which day, over ~1 month. On this ground — the daily reality of agencies, IT services firms and services teams, but also of any team that executes — these three tools are excellent (far better than a macro tool for assigning people). They bill "per person": this is the micro level, complementary to the quarter.

Float — the benchmark for team scheduling

Float bills itself as "the #1 resource management software" and the reviews back it up (G2 4.3/5 across more than 2,100 reviews, Capterra 4.5/5 across 1,600+). A clear view of who's working on what, drag-and-drop assignments, time tracking. List price: from $7/scheduled person/mo (Pro plan at $12).

• Strengths: a widely adopted visual schedule, quick to pick up, a massive and solid review base.
• Limits: it's a staffing tool — no portfolio trade-offs and no decision-making governance.
• Who it's for: agencies, studios and services teams that schedule people.

Runn — staffing and financial forecasting

Runn positions itself on "resource management and capacity planning" with a strong forecasting angle (future workload, revenue projections). Capterra 4.8/5 (33 reviews); on G2, the listing carries only a single review (not significant). Price: from $7/resource seat/mo (Standard at $11).

• Strengths: workload and revenue forecasting, good ergonomics, very positive Capterra reviews.
• Limits: young on G2 (1 review), and like Float, geared toward staffing/forecasting rather than portfolio governance.
• Who it's for: services firms that steer staffing and profitability in one place.

Resource Guru — the simplicity of scheduling

Resource Guru bets on simplicity: "making capacity obvious, scheduling flexible." Excellent ratings (G2 4.6/5 across 493 reviews, Capterra 4.7/5 across 540). One of the most affordable prices: from $5/person/mo. Categorized under "employee scheduling" — the signal is clear.

• Strengths: instantly usable, a clear team schedule, low entry price.
• Limits: scope deliberately narrowed to scheduling — no portfolio, no trade-offs.
• Who it's for: teams that want a shared schedule without the bloat.

The generalists with a capacity view

Three work management platforms offer a workload view on top of task management. Relevant if your projects already live there; less precise on pure capacity trade-offs. monday.com (G2 4.7/5 · Capterra 4.6/5, 9-19 €/user/mo) offers no-code "workload" views; Smartsheet (G2 4.4/5 across 22,700+ reviews, from $9/member/mo) pushes resource management the furthest; Asana (G2 4.4/5 · Capterra 4.5/5, from $10.99/user/mo) offers a workload view in its advanced plans. Microsoft Project (G2 4.0/5) remains the option for 100% Microsoft environments, with Power BI for reporting.

Smartsheet — resource management for the generalists

Among the generalists, Smartsheet is the one that pushes resource management the furthest, via its Resource Management module (formerly 10,000ft) billed as an add-on. You model workload per person and track allocation and project budget — useful when your projects already live in Smartsheet sheets. It's not a portfolio trade-off tool: capacity stays a view, not a cross-team decision, and the full capacity module requires a Business/Enterprise plan on top of the add-on. Entry price from $9/member/mo (annual); G2 4.4/5 across more than 22,700 reviews, Capterra 4.5/5 across 3,500+.

How to choose: a guide by profile

To sharpen your need before the demos, the guide to choosing a workload planning tool separates individual scheduling from cross-team trade-offs.

• CIO / PMO who must make trade-offs across teams (what can we deliver together this quarter?) → AirSaas, at the skill groups × quarter × deliverable level; or a full PPM (Planview, Triskell) for very fine-grained capacity with an implementation project.
• Then, within each team (scheduling people by the month, once priorities are set) → Float, Runn (with financial forecasting), Resource Guru, or your execution tools already in place (Jira…).
• Agency / IT services firm whose primary challenge is staffing people → Float, Runn or Resource Guru directly.
• A team whose projects already live in a work management tool → the workload view in monday, Smartsheet or Asana.
• A 100% Microsoft environment → Microsoft Project + Power BI.

The classic trap: choosing the best-rated tool instead of the right level. An excellent person-level scheduling tool will never tell you "what can we deliver together this quarter?", and a macro tool won't replace month-level team scheduling. Start with the level — macro across teams, then micro within the team — the rating comes after.