Best for
Best for professional services and IT organisations that want portfolio, resourcing and timesheets in one system, and for those that need it installed on their own servers.
- Small and mid-sized
- Enterprise
Resource Planning Comparison
At a glance
Best for
Best for professional services and IT organisations that want portfolio, resourcing and timesheets in one system, and for those that need it installed on their own servers.
Best for
Best for agencies and teams whose main need is clear capacity planning and utilization.
Cataleo does not name a winner. Both statements come from the vendors themselves.
| Criterion | Celoxis | Float |
|---|---|---|
| Starting price | From $10 / user / month Core tier, prepaid annually. Every plan requires a minimum of five full-access users; the higher tiers price team-member and timesheet users below a full seat. | lower value From $7 / scheduled person / month Starter, billed annually. Pro $12 per scheduled person and month, Enterprise on request. Monthly billing is also offered. |
| Free trial | 14-day trial with sample data | 30-day free trial of the Pro plan, no credit card required |
| API | Yes, a documented web-based REST API alongside more than 400 prebuilt integrations | Not stated |
| Hosting | Cloud on AWS in the United States and Ireland, audited against ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Type 2, or on-premise on Linux, Windows or macOS with SQL Server 2016+, Oracle 11g/12c or PostgreSQL 12+ | Not stated |
| Made in | India (Celoxis Technologies, Pune) | Australia |
| Resource planning | Yes, allocation by availability, demand and skills, with capacity planning, multiple locations and shifts, holiday and exception handling and instant overload alerts | Yes, drag-and-drop scheduling with capacity forecasting, utilization tracking and PTO planning |
| Task planning | Yes, plans that schedule automatically around time off, delays and changing priorities, with inter-project dependencies, critical path, baselines and earned value analysis | Yes, with drag-and-drop task scheduling |
| Time tracking | Yes, a built-in timesheet module with inbuilt timers, multi-level approvals, automatic reminders and configurable policies | Yes, on the Pro plan and above, with pre-filled timesheets |
| Reporting and controlling | Yes, custom drill-down charts and shared dashboards with PDF export and scheduled email delivery, plus financials covering margins, revenue forecasting and budget spend | Yes, utilization and project budgets with margin tracking |
| AI features | stated Yes | No |
| MCP-ready | No | stated Yes |
| Deployment | more entries Cloud (SaaS), Browser-based, On-premise | Cloud (SaaS), Browser-based |
| Support | Community forum | Chat |
| Onboarding | Documentation and knowledge base, Video tutorials, Live online demos and webinars | Documentation and knowledge base, Video tutorials, Guided onboarding |
| Company size | Small and mid-sized, Enterprise | Small and mid-sized, Enterprise |
| Integrations | more entries Jira, Salesforce, QuickBooks Online, Microsoft Project, Microsoft Excel, Slack, Zapier, Google Drive, Google Sheets, Google Forms, Trello, GitHub, Zendesk, Freshdesk, Harvest, Mailchimp, SurveyMonkey, Evernote, Microsoft Active Directory, Okta, OneLogin, SAML 2.0, iCal | Aprimo, Asana, Basecamp, ClickUp, Google Calendar, Outlook Calendar, HubSpot, Jira, Karbon, Slack, Zapier, Claude, ChatGPT |
Adds a column to the table, from the tools in this category.
Row where the values differ The small markers point at the lower number, the longer list or the stated feature. They describe the data, they are not a verdict.
The short version
Every line is one datapoint from the table above, picked automatically. Nothing here is written text.
The trade-offs
Celoxis
Strengths
Limitations
Float
Strengths
Limitations
Plans
Celoxis
Float
What users say
Celoxis
No reviews yet. Nothing has been published here yet, and no score is shown. How a review is checked before it appears is described below.
Float
No reviews yet. Nothing has been published here yet, and no score is shown. How a review is checked before it appears is described below.
Before sending, the author has to confirm three things: that they have used the product themselves, that they work neither for the vendor nor for a competitor, and that nobody is paying them for the review. We also ask whether the vendor invited them to write it. That answer is required, either answer is accepted, and it stays with the review.
Every review is read by a person before it appears. An email address is required and is confirmed: we send a link to it, and a review does not reach us until the author opens that link, so a review has a sender who was reachable at least once rather than being anonymous. Where what somebody writes needs backing, we ask them for evidence that they used the product, and a review that does not get it is not published. We publish positive and negative reviews alike, we pay nothing and offer nothing for a review, and we accept none that was bought or incentivised.
What we cannot do is verify a purchase. There is no shop here and no account, so whether the author really used the tool rests on their own declaration, on whatever we ask them for, and on the plausibility of what they write. We say so rather than implying a check that does not exist.
A vendor cannot buy a review, and cannot have one removed or changed because they dislike it. We remove or edit a review only if it breaks our rules or the law, for example a false statement of fact. Paid placement has no effect on which reviews appear or on any score.
Where this comes from
Celoxis https://www.celoxis.com · no check date recorded yet
Float https://www.float.com · checked against the official source on 2026-09-30
This table lists factual criteria taken from information the vendors publish themselves. For how we put it together, see the methodology.