Best for
Best for engineering, architecture and consulting firms that want capacity planning, project tasks and timesheets in one system.
- Small and mid-sized
- Enterprise
Resource Planning Comparison
At a glance
Best for
Best for engineering, architecture and consulting firms that want capacity planning, project tasks and timesheets in one system.
Best for
Best for teams that need fast, clear availability and to avoid double-booking.
Cataleo does not name a winner. Both statements come from the vendors themselves.
| Criterion | EG Silverbucket | Resource Guru |
|---|---|---|
| Starting price | Quote-based Priced on the number of active people in the resourcing pool rather than on logins or feature tiers, with archived users free of charge; the subscription includes all features, while integration, maintenance and training are bought on demand. No amounts are published. | Grasshopper from $4.16 / person / month Billed annually; $5 billed monthly. Blackbelt $8 and Master $12 per person and month billed monthly, with two months free on annual plans. Equipment and rooms cost $2.50, $4 and $6 each per month. |
| Free trial | 30 days, full access, no credit card required | 30-day trial |
| Users | EG cites over 40,000 users | Not stated |
| API | Yes, an API for people, projects, customers and actual hours, plus bulk CSV and XLSX imports and single sign-on | Not stated |
| Made in | Finland (Silverbucket, Tampere, part of the Danish EG group since 2021) | UK |
| Resource planning | Yes, drag-to-select percentage allocation to named people or role placeholders, structured resourcing requests with best-match candidate comparison, tentative allocations for modelling unconfirmed bids, competency tracking and a portfolio overview | Yes, real-time availability and booking calendar with clash management, for people, equipment and rooms |
| Task planning | Yes, tasks within each project on an interactive Gantt timeline, with milestones at both project and programme level | Yes, Gantt charts with phases, tasks, dependencies and milestones, planned against the same schedule |
| Time tracking | Yes, built-in timesheets with comments per entry and locking after a defined period; logged hours update allocation actuals directly, and an existing time registration tool can be integrated instead | Yes, weekly timesheets with auto-suggested entries and an approval workflow on the Master plan |
| Reporting and controlling | Yes, forecast and actual reports on utilisation, income, hour budgets and invoicing, a performance dashboard for billability, fee recovery and margins, a custom export builder to PDF or Excel, a filtered activity feed and a Power BI connection | Yes, utilization and capacity reports, heatmap views, budget burn and forecast versus actuals, customizable and exportable from the Blackbelt plan |
| AI features | stated Yes | No |
| MCP-ready | Yes | Yes |
| Deployment | Cloud (SaaS), Browser-based | Cloud (SaaS), Browser-based |
| Support | Email helpdesk, Phone | Email helpdesk, Phone |
| Onboarding | Documentation and knowledge base, Personal consulting | Documentation and knowledge base, Video tutorials |
| Company size | Small and mid-sized, Enterprise | Small and mid-sized, Enterprise |
| Integrations | Power BI, Microsoft Excel | more entries Google Calendar, Outlook, Slack, Microsoft Teams, Jira, Asana |
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
EG Silverbucket
Strengths
Limitations
Resource Guru
Strengths
Limitations
Plans
EG Silverbucket
Resource Guru
What users say
EG Silverbucket
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.
Resource Guru
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
EG Silverbucket https://www.silverbucket.com · checked against the official source on 2026-09-11
Resource Guru https://resourceguruapp.com · no check date recorded yet
This table lists factual criteria taken from information the vendors publish themselves. For how we put it together, see the methodology.