Resource planning software in 2026: Float vs Resource Guru vs Runn vs Teamdeck vs Saviom

Before accepting a new project, a delivery manager needs to know whether the right people are available during the right weeks. A list of tasks or hours already worked cannot fully answer that question. Resource planning software helps turn future demand, leave, skills, and commitments into an allocation decision.

Float, Resource Guru, Runn, Teamdeck, and Saviom cover that decision with different combinations of scheduling, reporting, forecasting, and financial context. This comparison uses official information reviewed on October 14, 2026. The evaluation suggestions are proposed buyer exercises, not claims that Rivalivo measured better utilization or project margins.

Plan capacity before promising delivery

A useful plan distinguishes contracted time from time available for project work. Leave, part-time calendars, internal responsibilities, and tentative assignments affect capacity. Agree what counts as available before comparing the percentages shown in a product demonstration. Otherwise, two seemingly similar utilization reports may guide managers toward different decisions.

This is a forward staffing decision. Our project management comparison covers organizing execution, while our time tracking comparison covers actual recorded work. A resource planner can connect those systems without replacing every part of them.

The quick difference

Product	Best fit	Useful distinction	Input to maintain	Billing boundary
Float	Delivery teams relating staffing to project economics	Scheduling with actuals and financial context	Calendars, estimates, and rates	Scheduled people; plan-specific reporting
Resource Guru	Teams coordinating people and shared resources	Bookings and visible capacity conflicts	Availability, leave, and booking ownership	People and other resources priced separately
Runn	Teams exploring future demand and capacity	Forecasts and saved planning scenarios	Tentative work and resource assumptions	Resource seats rather than login users
Teamdeck	Teams relating planned allocation to recorded time	Resource calendar, timesheets, and reports	Consistent project and time records	Light and full member roles
Saviom	Organizations planning complex resource pools	Configurable demand, skills, and financial planning	Shared definitions and planning governance	Quoted Power and Lite licenses

Float

Float connects people schedules with project estimates, actuals, utilization, and margin information. Its current positioning emphasizes the delivery picture: who is committed, how project assumptions change, and what those changes mean financially. That can help a delivery team discuss allocation and budget using the same underlying plan.

The strength depends on maintaining the inputs. Project rates, estimates, leave, and recorded effort should have identified owners. A schedule can remain useful with imperfect financial data, but a detailed margin view should not be treated as reliable if nobody reconciles rates or actuals.

Float charges by scheduled person. Its FAQ states that guests who do not need scheduling can be added without a paid scheduled seat, while new paid seats are prorated. Starter and Pro differ: time tracking and deeper financial reporting are listed under Pro, and Enterprise adds sales-led support and contractual scope. Shortlist Float when staffing decisions need that delivery context. Demonstrate a revised project estimate and a changed assignment together, then check whether the manager can explain the implications without reconstructing them in another spreadsheet.

Resource Guru

Resource Guru focuses on shared scheduling, capacity, and conflict handling. Its product material covers people as well as other bookable resources and describes project planning against availability. This is useful when a project depends on a specific specialist, room, or item of equipment and several managers need a common booking process.

A focused scheduler still needs rules for tentative work and competing requests. Decide who may create or approve a booking and how an unresolved clash appears to the people affected. Review how leave and changed dates flow into the plan. The useful result is a clear commitment, not simply a calendar containing every request.

Pricing distinguishes people from other resources. The FAQ says people added to the account are billable even if they never log in; monthly and annual options differ, and reporting or control features vary across plans. Placeholder allowances also have limits. Resource Guru fits teams whose immediate problem is coordinating shared capacity. Include an equipment booking and a part-time employee in the evaluation, then compare the actual resource count with the plan’s billing definition.

Runn

Runn presents resource management and capacity planning around future demand. Current material describes planning visibility, forecasts, and scenarios. Those capabilities can help managers consider whether to accept work, change a start date, or seek an additional skill before every project has a final assignment.

Forecasts should preserve uncertainty. A tentative assignment has different authority from a confirmed booking, and a placeholder is not an available employee. Set a review habit for start dates and unassigned demand so the forecast evolves when commercial or delivery assumptions change.

Runn’s current pricing uses resource seats rather than login users. Its FAQ distinguishes resources in the planner from users with access and states that placeholders are not charged separately. Lite, Standard, and Advanced have different scope, including scenario and control boundaries; volume and purchasing terms need confirmation. Runn suits teams that want future staffing choices to be explicit. Ask a pilot to show an earlier project start, a delayed engagement, and the original plan side by side, then identify which role becomes constrained in each case.

Teamdeck

Teamdeck combines resource calendars, timesheets, leave, and reporting. It describes API and integration options for connecting the planning process with other tools. This combination can suit a team that wants to compare allocated work with recorded effort and adjust future bookings using that feedback.

The distinction between member roles matters. The current pricing page describes light members who appear in planning and reports without full application access, and full members who can work in the application according to their role. Choose the role based on the actual workflow rather than assuming every scheduled contractor needs the same access as a manager.

Pricing has separate light and full member rates, with displayed purchasing options that should be confirmed for the selected billing period. An Enterprise package addresses more complex organizational needs. Teamdeck is relevant when the planning loop depends on timesheets, but that loop needs consistent project identifiers and timely entries. Evaluate a person splitting work across projects, then review the difference between planned allocation and actual time. Confirm whether the required connection is native, API-based, or built through an additional automation service.

Saviom

Saviom offers configurable resource management spanning demand, capacity, scheduling, utilization, and financial planning. Its material addresses medium-to-large organizations with complex resource pools. That scope can be useful when staffing crosses departments or locations and a simple shared calendar no longer explains skills, demand, and authorization.

Configuration brings preparation work. Roles, skills, calendars, organizational structures, and financial inputs need consistent definitions. Ask who maintains each field after implementation and which planners can see or change it. A broad planning model becomes difficult to trust if departments enter equivalent information differently.

Saviom’s pricing is quotation-based and distinguishes Power and Lite licenses. Its official page describes non-users as schedulable resources without their own license, so it should not be priced as a generic per-employee subscription. Request a quote showing the exact access roles, modules, deployment, implementation, and support. Shortlist Saviom when organizational complexity justifies that configurable model. Use a cross-department request in the demonstration and check how authority moves from demand submission to confirmed allocation.

How to choose resource planning software

Choose the decision horizon first. Resolving next week’s clashes needs a different evaluation from planning a specialist pool for the next quarter. Supply the same working calendars, leave, confirmed work, and uncertain demand to each candidate. Include one shared specialist so the demonstration has an actual constraint.

Write down the capacity calculation. For a proposed example, a person contracted for 30 hours with six hours of internal work has 24 hours before leave or other exclusions. Ask the product to explain the denominator used in its utilization view. This is an illustrative evaluation input, not a vendor benchmark or an employee performance assessment.

Test changes rather than only a completed schedule. Move a project start, withdraw tentative work, and add leave. Check who receives the change and whether a manager can distinguish requests from commitments. If financial forecasting matters, trace a rate and an effort estimate into the report and confirm what happens when they are revised.

Compare costs using scheduled people, bookable resources, access licenses, or member roles as each provider defines them. Keep any USD offer separate from a localized quotation, and distinguish monthly flexibility from annual commitments. Include integration, data preparation, and training. The winning workflow should produce a decision in the planning meeting with less reconciliation work.

Evaluation checklist

Define the planning horizon and who may promise capacity.
Model part-time hours, leave, internal work, tentative demand, and shared skills.
Verify how utilization and availability are calculated.
Test changed dates, competing bookings, and approval responsibility.
Count billable resources and access roles using the actual plan definitions.

Conclusion

Float connects allocation to delivery economics, Resource Guru helps coordinate bookings, Runn makes future demand scenarios explicit, Teamdeck links planning with recorded time, and Saviom supports configurable organizational resource models. Choose the product that explains your next staffing commitment clearly. Features and vendor case studies are not evidence that a particular team will achieve the same utilization or financial result.