Best time tracking software for agencies in 2026, compared

"Our agency loses money on projects because we don't know where our team's time is actually going." That is the search an agency runs after the second or third project quietly goes over budget without anyone noticing until the invoice stage. Time tracking software for agencies exists to close that gap: it captures billable and non-billable hours and, in the tools that do this well, ties those hours directly to the project budget instead of leaving them in a timesheet nobody reads until month-end.

This guide compares the nine tools agencies and consultancies shortlist most often for time tracking in 2026. For each one: how time actually gets captured, whether it connects to budgets and billing, and what it costs.

TL;DR

• Pike logs time against a task and updates the project budget and utilisation the same moment.
• Kantata tracks time well, but inside a heavier, process-driven delivery workflow.
• Scoro ties time entry to the plan, so logging works best when the plan is already built.
• Productive connects time to budgets, but logging takes more steps across separate views.
• Accelo captures time with AI assistance, layered inside a broader service-delivery platform.
• Teamwork tracks time cleanly, but keeps it separate from the project work itself.
• Asana has native time tracking, but as a secondary feature to its task boards.
• BigTime attaches a real per-person cost rate to every entry from the moment it is logged.
• Rocketlane folds time capture into onboarding and implementation workflows.

See billable hours and utilisation update in real time. Book a 15-minute walkthrough.

What time tracking software for agencies actually does

Time tracking software for agencies records how people spend billable and non-billable hours, then reports that against project budgets, rates, and utilisation. That last part is what separates it from a generic timesheet tool: a timesheet answers how many hours were worked, while agency time tracking answers how many of those hours were billable, against which budget, and whether the project is still on track.

The gap most agencies feel is not the logging itself. It is the distance between the moment someone logs an hour and the moment that hour shows up in a budget report. When time sits in a separate tool from project budgets, someone has to export it, match it against the plan, and rebuild the profitability picture by hand, usually weeks after the hours were actually worked. By then a losing project has already lost the money. For the fuller picture of how time capture connects through to billing and profitability, see our time tracking and billing guide; for the tools that automate invoicing specifically, see agency billing software.

What to look for in agency time tracking software

Time connected to the budget, not just recorded. When someone logs three hours, the project budget should reflect it immediately. If that update requires an export or a manual sync, the budget number you are looking at is always stale by however long that sync takes.

Clean billable versus non-billable capture. The ratio between the two is your utilisation rate, one of the most important numbers in the business. Good software marks that split at the point of entry rather than requiring a separate reconciliation pass. See utilisation rate if the term is new.

Rate cards by role and by client. A senior consultant and a junior analyst rarely bill at the same rate, and the same person can bill differently across clients. Time tracking that ignores this treats every hour as equally valuable, which flattens exactly the number you need to see clearly.

Low-friction logging. The most accurate time data comes from tools people actually use without resenting it. Timers, quick entry, and mobile logging matter because every added step between doing the work and recording it is a chance for the entry to be wrong or skipped entirely.

Approval and locking before billing. Once timesheets feed invoices, someone needs to review and lock them first. Without that step, an invoice can go out based on time that turns out, after the fact, to be wrong.

Comparison table

Starting prices are the vendors' public list prices as of 2026. Where a vendor does not publish pricing, we show contact sales.

1. Pike

Best for: agencies and consultancies that want a logged hour to update the project budget and utilisation the moment it is entered, not after an export.

Pike builds time tracking directly into the project workspace rather than bolting it on as a separate module. Logging an hour against a task updates that project's budget and the person's utilisation in the same action, so the numbers a manager sees on a Tuesday reflect Tuesday's work, not last month's export. Time carries role- and client-specific rates, splits billable from non-billable automatically, and rolls straight into invoicing across 4 billing models (fixed-price, time-and-materials, capped T&M, and retainer) without anyone re-entering it. It is in production at teams including Outerkind, McElroy Architecture, e&enterprise, WPP, and Veolia.

Pros

• Logged time updates the project budget and utilisation immediately, not on a delay.
• Billable and non-billable time split automatically and feed utilisation reporting on their own.
• Time flows straight into invoicing across 4 billing models, with no re-entry.

Cons

• Workspace-wide utilisation reporting sits on the Growth plan and above, not the entry Core tier.
• Teams that only need a standalone timer, with no budget or billing connection, are paying for more than they need.

Pricing: Pike publishes plans starting at $29 per user per month (Core, billed annually; $35 monthly), with Growth at $49 and Scale at $99 per user per month, plus a custom Enterprise tier. See pricing or book a walkthrough.

2. Kantata

Best for: large professional services firms that already run time tracking inside a structured, staged delivery process.

Kantata's time tracking is genuinely strong, but it lives inside a heavier, process-driven system built for firms that formalize delivery stages before work starts. That fit is a strength for a firm already running that way, and friction for one that is not: logging time well in Kantata usually means the project has already been set up with the structure the tool expects.

Pros

• Time tracking connects cleanly to project accounting once the delivery structure is in place.
• Suits firms that already formalize project stages and want time capture to match.

Cons

• The structure that makes time tracking work well is itself setup overhead for smaller or less process-driven teams.
• Strongest fit assumes an existing Salesforce environment; firms on another CRM get less from the integration.

Pricing: Kantata does not publish standard pricing. Contact its sales team for a custom quote. See Kantata vs Pike.

3. Scoro

Best for: boutique consultancies that plan work in detail before it starts and want time logged straight against that plan.

Scoro ties time entry to its planning module, so a consultant logs hours against tasks that were already scoped and scheduled. That works well when the plan is built out ahead of time, since the time entry has somewhere specific to land. It asks more of the team when work is looser or the plan changes mid-project, because the structure that makes logging fast also makes it less forgiving of an unplanned task.

Pros

• Time entry ties directly to the pre-built plan, so hours land against the right task without guesswork.
• Planning and time tracking share one system, with no separate tool to reconcile.

Cons

• Logging unplanned or ad hoc work is more friction than in a simpler standalone tracker.
• Getting value from the connection requires the plan to be built out first, which is its own setup step.

Pricing: from $19.90 per user per month. See Scoro vs Pike.

4. Productive

Best for: agencies already running budgets in Productive who can absorb a few extra clicks to log time.

Productive connects time entries to project budgets, which is the right idea. Where it costs you is the path to get there: logging and updating time typically means moving across more than one view, rather than one quick entry point. For a team that is already deep in Productive for budgeting and reporting, that is a manageable extra step. For a team whose main pain is getting people to log time at all, the added friction works against adoption.

Pros

• Time entries connect to project budgets without a manual export.
• Fits naturally for teams already using Productive for budget tracking and reporting.

Cons

• Logging and updating time takes more steps across different views than a dedicated timer.
• The extra friction can hurt adoption on teams that already find time tracking a chore.

Pricing: from $10 per user per month. See Productive vs Pike.

5. Accelo

Best for: client-services firms that want AI-assisted time capture as part of a broader service-delivery platform.

Accelo layers AI-assisted time capture into a wider platform that also handles quoting, delivery, and billing. The AI assistance reduces some of the manual entry burden, but it sits inside a much broader system, so a firm adopting Accelo mainly for time tracking is taking on more platform than that one job needs.

Pros

• AI assistance reduces some of the manual work of logging time.
• Time capture connects to the same system handling quotes, delivery, and invoicing.

Cons

• The broader platform is more than a team needs if time capture is the only problem being solved.
• AI-assisted capture still needs human review before it feeds billing.

Pricing: Accelo does not publish pricing. Contact its sales team for a quote. See Accelo vs Pike.

6. Teamwork

Best for: teams that want a straightforward, dedicated timer and are fine with time living apart from the project view.

Teamwork's built-in timer is intuitive on its own terms: starting, stopping, and reviewing logged hours is simple. The tradeoff is that time tracking stays a separate feature from the core project workflow rather than something woven into it, so seeing time next to the work it was spent on takes an extra step.

Pros

• The timer itself is simple and easy for a team to adopt without training.
• More than 150 integrations mean logged time can flow to other tools your finance team already uses.

Cons

• Time tracking sits apart from core project views instead of inside them.
• Turning logged time into budget or margin visibility takes extra reporting, not a built-in view.

Pricing: from $10.99 per user per month. See Teamwork vs Pike.

7. Asana

Best for: teams already living in Asana for tasks that need basic hours capture without adopting a second tool.

Asana's time tracking is native, but it plays a supporting role to the task-board workflow the platform is actually built around. Custom fields can record time against a task, which covers teams whose main need is a rough hours record. It is a less natural fit once utilisation and billing accuracy become the actual requirement, since that is not the feature Asana was designed around.

Pros

• Time tracking lives inside the same tool as tasks, with nothing extra to log into.
• Custom fields make it easy to add a time estimate alongside actual hours.

Cons

• Time tracking is secondary to task management and feels less considered as a result.
• No native connection from logged time to project financials or billing.

Pricing: plans with basic reporting start at $10.99 per person per month billed annually. See Asana vs Pike.

8. BigTime

Best for: finance-first firms that want every time entry to carry an accurate, real per-person cost rate from the moment it is logged.

BigTime has built its product around billing accuracy for more than two decades, and that shows in how it handles time. Each entry carries the person's actual cost rate rather than a flat team average, so the time data is already accurate for costing and billing the moment it is captured, not after someone corrects it downstream.

Pros

• Time entries carry real per-person rates, which keeps cost and billing data accurate from entry.
• Tight QuickBooks and Xero sync means logged time reconciles cleanly with the books.

Cons

• The interface leans toward finance teams; project managers who just want a quick timer may find it heavier than necessary.
• Resource and capacity views are thinner than dedicated PSA platforms once a firm passes 50 people.

Pricing: from $20 per person per month.

9. Rocketlane

Best for: implementation and onboarding teams that want time capture folded into the onboarding workflow itself, not tracked separately.

Rocketlane holds a 4.7 out of 5 rating on G2. Its time tracking sits inside the onboarding and implementation workflow rather than as a standalone module, so hours get captured as part of the same steps a team is already working through with a client, with AI reducing some of the manual admin around it.

Pros

• Time capture is part of the onboarding workflow, not a separate step to remember.
• AI assistance cuts down on manual admin during implementation-heavy engagements.

Cons

• Built around onboarding and implementation specifically, so it fits less naturally once a client moves into steady-state delivery.
• Heavy automation can get in the way of engagements that need more bespoke handling.

Pricing: from $69 per user per month.

Which tool fits your agency

• 20-person agency, biggest pain is getting people to log time at all. Teamwork or Asana, since both offer a simple, low-friction entry point, though neither connects that time to a budget on its own.
• 30-person agency that needs time to update the budget automatically. Pike, for the direct line from a logged hour to the project's live budget and utilisation.
• 50-person agency standardizing delivery around formal project plans. Kantata or Scoro, if the team already builds out the plan before work starts.
• Finance-first firm prioritizing billing accuracy over ease of logging. BigTime, for real per-person cost rates on every entry.
• Client-services firm wanting AI to reduce manual entry. Accelo, inside its broader delivery platform.
• Implementation or onboarding-heavy team. Rocketlane, for time captured as part of the onboarding steps themselves.

Why agencies choose Pike for time tracking

Agencies choose Pike because time tracking is not a separate module bolted onto the project. A logged hour updates the project's budget and resourcing view in the same action, so utilisation and margin reflect what actually happened today, not a reconstruction pulled together at month-end. That connection is also what makes billing straightforward: the hours behind an invoice are the same hours the team was already working from, across whichever billing models the client roster uses.

See billable hours and utilisation update in real time. Book a 15-minute walkthrough.

How we evaluated these tools

We assessed each product against the five areas above (budget connection, billable/non-billable capture, rate cards, logging friction, and approval workflows), along with its fit for agencies and professional services firms specifically.

Public vendor pages supplied feature and pricing details. Where a vendor does not publish pricing, we marked it contact sales. Each entry names one real limitation, not just its strengths.

Frequently asked questions

See connected time tracking in Pike

If your agency is logging time in one tool and reconstructing profitability in another, it is worth seeing what happens when the two are the same system.

See billable hours and utilisation update in real time. Book a 15-minute walkthrough and we will show you how time flows straight through to budgets and margin in Pike.