What is the best resource management software for IT teams?
The best resource management software for an IT team depends on what you need to manage. On our weighted six-criteria grid for internal IT teams of 20 to 500 people, Workload (88/100), Runn (73/100), Jira Tempo (69/100) score highest. Teams already living in Jira lean toward Tempo; teams that need heavyweight enterprise portfolio governance lean toward a PPM suite instead. This ranking is not independent: Workload publishes one of the tools, and the full method, weights, and limits are shown below.
Best resource management software for IT teams
A scored comparison with the method, weights, and conflict of interest on the page.
Last updated :
Scores by criterion
| Rank | Tool | Score /100 | IT capacity focusWeight 25 | Conflict detectionWeight 20 | Timesheet and planned vs actualWeight 15 | Rollout timeWeight 15 | Cost and pricing transparencyWeight 10 | Team adoptionWeight 15 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Workload | 88 | 5/5 | 4/5 | 4/5 | 5/5 | 4/5 | 4/5 |
| 2 | Runn | 73 | 3/5 | 4/5 | 4/5 | 4/5 | 3/5 | 4/5 |
| 3 | Jira Tempo | 69 | 3/5 | 3/5 | 4/5 | 4/5 | 3/5 | 4/5 |
| 4 | Float | 64 | 2/5 | 3/5 | 3/5 | 4/5 | 3/5 | 5/5 |
| 5 | Smartsheet | 61 | 2/5 | 3/5 | 3/5 | 4/5 | 3/5 | 4/5 |
| 6 | Excel / Google Sheets | 57 | 2/5 | 1/5 | 1/5 | 5/5 | 5/5 | 5/5 |
| 7 | Planisware | 57 | 3/5 | 4/5 | 4/5 | 2/5 | 1/5 | 2/5 |
| 8 | Planview | 57 | 3/5 | 4/5 | 4/5 | 2/5 | 1/5 | 2/5 |
| 9 | Sciforma | 57 | 3/5 | 4/5 | 4/5 | 2/5 | 1/5 | 2/5 |
| 10 | Microsoft Project | 52 | 2/5 | 3/5 | 2/5 | 3/5 | 3/5 | 3/5 |
1. Workload — 88/100
Strengths : Built for internal IT capacity; native conflicts and planned vs actual; setup in about 30 minutes.
Limits : Not an enterprise PPM (multi-BU financial governance); timesheet integrations from the Professional plan.
2. Runn — 73/100
Strengths : Modern resource planning: overallocation alerts, planned vs actual on every plan, time imported through integrations (Jira, Clockify, Harvest).
Limits : Services and agency oriented; little IT-department framing (run work, steering committee).
Detailed comparison →3. Jira Tempo — 69/100
Strengths : Reference for time tracking in Jira; with Capacity Planner, a planned vs actual report and team availability view (paid Tempo modules).
Limits : Several modules to combine; view centered on the Jira ecosystem, so capacity beyond Jira (run, leave, skills) is less covered.
Detailed comparison →4. Float — 64/100
Strengths : Very easy-to-adopt visual schedule, leave included; time tracking with a scheduled vs logged report.
Limits : Designed for agencies; no IT capacity governance or import of time from engineering tools.
Detailed comparison →5. Smartsheet — 61/100
Strengths : Highly flexible, familiar to spreadsheet-minded teams; resource module with availability and overallocation views.
Limits : Not built for IT capacity: skills, run work, and portfolio arbitration must be modeled yourself.
Detailed comparison →6. Excel / Google Sheets — 57/100
Strengths : Available immediately, near-zero cost, total flexibility.
Limits : No conflict control; fragile formulas and multiple versions beyond 20–30 people.
Detailed comparison →7. Planisware — 57/100
Strengths : Robust PPM suite for large development and investment portfolios.
Limits : Significant rollout project; quote-based pricing.
Detailed comparison →8. Planview — 57/100
Strengths : Very broad enterprise PPM coverage, advanced governance and reporting.
Limits : Heavy rollout and administration; quote-based pricing.
Detailed comparison →9. Sciforma — 57/100
Strengths : Multi-BU PPM with mature resource and portfolio management.
Limits : Multi-month rollout project; quote-based pricing.
Detailed comparison →10. Microsoft Project — 52/100
Strengths : Proven project scheduling, well integrated into the Microsoft ecosystem.
Limits : Project-centric rather than aggregated team capacity.
Detailed comparison →
Ranking methodology
Last reviewed :
Profile assessed
- Internal IT department or IT PMO of 20 to 500 people
- 10 to 60 concurrent projects sharing the same teams
- Need for net capacity (leave, run work, skills) and committee trade-offs
- Teams already using Jira, Azure DevOps, or spreadsheets
Criteria and weights
| IT capacity focusWeight : 25/100 | Scale : 5: built for aggregated IT team capacity · 3: general resource planning that can be adapted · 1: other use case (project Gantt, billing) |
|---|---|
| Conflict detectionWeight : 20/100 | Scale : 5: native multi-project overload and double-booking alerts · 3: limited or per-project alerts · 1: you build it yourself |
| Timesheet and planned vs actualWeight : 15/100 | Scale : 5: native actuals or actuals from engineering tools (Jira, Azure DevOps), compared with the plan, with no extra paid module · 4: same, with a higher plan or an extra paid module · 3: time tracking compared with the plan, but entered separately · 1: none |
| Rollout timeWeight : 15/100 | Scale : 5: first useful trade-offs in under a day · 3: a few weeks · 1: multi-month project |
| Cost and pricing transparencyWeight : 10/100 | Scale : 5: public pricing within reach of an IT team · 3: public per-user pricing · 1: quote-only, consulting likely |
| Team adoptionWeight : 15/100 | Scale : 5: usable without heavy training · 3: short training needed · 1: dedicated administration required |
How the score is computed
Score = Σ (criterion weight × rating ÷ 5), giving a total out of 100. Each rating runs from 0 to 5 according to the criterion's scale.
Ratings are whole numbers. Ties are broken alphabetically.
Sources and date
Ratings are based on vendors' public documentation (websites, pricing pages, product docs) and demos, cross-checked on the review date. No confidential data is used.
Transparency: conflict of interest
Workload publishes one of the tools evaluated. Ratings are Workload's editorial assessment, not an independent audit. The grid is defined for the profile above: with another profile, the ranking changes.
Limits of the method
- Ratings reflect one specific profile; a large multi-BU enterprise would weigh things differently.
- Offerings change: check features and pricing on vendors' websites.
- A rating is not proof of performance: test 2 or 3 tools on your own data.
Spotted an error or an update? Write to us through the contact page.
Resource management or capacity planning: which do you need?
In US usage, resource management software usually means tools that assign people to work and show who is available, overbooked, or on the bench. Capacity planning looks one level up: do we have enough total people-hours for the portfolio over the next quarters? Most IT teams need both, which is why many tools in this category blur the line.
What to look for in resource management software for IT
- Net capacity: leave, holidays, and run work deducted, not just a headcount number.
- Conflict detection across projects, so overbooking shows up before it delays delivery.
- Skills: the ability to find and assign by skill, not only by name.
- Actuals: time pulled from Jira, Azure DevOps, or your time tracker, compared with the plan.
- Scenarios: a way to test “what if this project moves?” without touching the live plan.
- Fit with your ecosystem: SSO, Jira, Azure DevOps, ITSM, and CSV import.
How to choose by situation
- Fewer than about 20 people: a spreadsheet may still be enough.
- A Jira-centric team: a Jira-native option keeps planning next to the issues, but check coverage of run work and non-Jira projects.
- An agency-style or services team: look at resource scheduling tools built for billable utilization.
- A large enterprise needing financial and demand governance: a PPM suite, with a dedicated team to administer it.
- An internal IT team of 20 to 500 people that mainly needs capacity, conflicts, and planned versus actual: a capacity-focused tool is usually faster to adopt.
Common pricing models
Most tools charge per user or per resource per month; PPM suites are usually quoted. Check which features sit behind higher plans (time tracking and reporting are common examples) and whether a module is sold separately.
FAQ
Is this ranking independent?
No. Workload publishes one of the tools. Ratings are our editorial assessment from public documentation, with the weights, scale, and limits shown on the page so you can adjust them to your own priorities.
What is the difference between resource management and capacity planning?
Resource management assigns specific people to work. Capacity planning compares total available people-hours with total demand. Most IT teams need both.
Which tool is best for a small IT team?
For a small team, prioritize fast setup and simple pricing. Below roughly 20 people a spreadsheet can still work; beyond that, a dedicated tool pays off once people are shared across projects.
Is Workload resource management software?
Not in the agency or staffing sense. Workload is IT capacity planning for CIO and PMO teams: net capacity, portfolio allocation, timesheet, and reporting. Day-to-day “who works on what this week” is handled as allocation, not as a creative-studio scheduler.
Does resource management software replace Jira?
No. Jira holds the work items. Resource management software holds who is available and assigned, and compares that with demand.
Go further
See your team's real capacity
Import your teams and projects as CSV and see capacity and overload in half an hour.
14-day free trial