Float vs Runn: Pricing and Ratings Compared (2026)
Entry prices and free plans as read on each vendor's pricing page, and user ratings as published on review sites, for Float and Runn side by side. This page compares data; it is not a hands-on review.
On the data: On the data below, Runn leads on higher user rating and lower entry price. We do not name an overall winner for this pair.
Short on time? Here's the quick answer
Based on published vendor pricing and features and on public review data, here's who should pick what:
Float
Optimize resource allocation, plan projects profitably, and gain financial insights for your team.
Best for you if:
- • You want increases resourcing efficiency and on-time delivery
Runn
Strategic resource management software for maximizing capacity, utilization, and project delivery.
Best for you if:
- • You want provides a single source of truth for resource data, reducing inconsistencies
| At a Glance | Float | Runn |
|---|---|---|
Starts at | From $700/mo, billed monthly Starter plan | From $7/mo, billed monthly Lite plan |
Category | Project Management Resource Planning | Project Management Task Management |
Rating | 4.4/5 G2 4.4 45 reviews | 4.8/5 Capterra 4.8 · G2 4.5 34 reviews |
Free plan | No | No |
Choose Float or Runn?
Choose Float if
- You want increases resourcing efficiency and on-time delivery
- You want provides clear visibility into team availability and project profitability
Choose Runn if
- You want provides a single source of truth for resource data, reducing inconsistencies
- You want significantly reduces time spent on planning and scheduling compared to manual methods
- Budget matters ($7/mo, billed monthly vs $700/mo, billed monthly)
In-Depth Analysis
Float
Optimize resource allocation, plan projects profitably, and gain financial insights for your team.
Float's pricing is on the expensive side, especially for smaller teams.
Strengths
- Pro: Increases resourcing efficiency and on-time delivery
- Pro: Provides clear visibility into team availability and project profitability
- Pro: Helps prevent double-booking and overworking team members
- Pro: Flexible for various work arrangements (full-time, part-time, contractors)
- Pro: User-friendly interface with drag-and-drop functionality
Weaknesses
- Con: Float's built-in reporting is thin, so teams that need in-depth project budget or financial analysis often end up exporting data to CSV and rebuilding the numbers in a spreadsheet.
- Con: Float is a pure resource scheduler with no real project or task management, lacking task dependencies and hierarchies, so it usually has to be paired with a separate PM tool for the actual execution work.
- Con: Because you pay per scheduled person and capabilities like actuals tracking, advanced reporting, SSO, and multi-currency are gated to the $12-per-person Pro tier, costs scale steeply as headcount grows.
- Con: Larger teams report the schedule becomes cumbersome at scale, citing heavy horizontal scrolling and project managers finding recurring timesheet entry tedious once dozens of people are on it.
Key features
Runn
Strategic resource management software for maximizing capacity, utilization, and project delivery.
Runn's pricing is fair for its comprehensive feature set, especially with the Standard tier at $11 per resource seat/month offering significant value.
Strengths
- Pro: Provides a single source of truth for resource data, reducing inconsistencies.
- Pro: Significantly reduces time spent on planning and scheduling compared to manual methods.
- Pro: Helps prevent employee burnout by balancing workloads effectively.
- Pro: Improves profitability and utilization by optimizing resource allocation.
- Pro: Offers clear visibility into future capacity and project pipeline for strategic decision-making.
Weaknesses
- Con: No specific cons were mentioned in the provided text.
Key features
Plans and prices: Float vs Runn
| Tool | Plans and prices | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Float |
| float.com/pricing read Nov 2, 2026 |
| Runn |
| runn.io/pricing read Nov 2, 2026 |
Prices as read on each vendor's own pricing page on the date shown. Plans are listed per tool and are not matched against the other tool's plans: a plan name or price in one column says nothing about the same row in the other. Details on Float pricing and Runn pricing.
Key Takeaways
Float
- Choose if you want optimize resource allocation, plan projects profitably, and gain financial insights for your team
Runn
- Higher user rating: 4.8/5 vs 4.4/5
- Lower entry price: $7/mo, billed monthly vs $700/mo, billed monthly
What the data shows
On the data below, Runn leads on higher user rating and lower entry price. We do not name an overall winner for this pair.
- Runn has the higher user rating (4.4/5 from 45 reviews for Float, 4.8/5 from 34 reviews for Runn).
- Runn has the lower entry price: $7/mo, billed monthly (Lite) against $700/mo, billed monthly (Starter) for Float.
Criteria: user rating (only above 20 reviews on both sides, gap of 0.2 or more), entry price (only on the same billing basis), free plan. How we rate
Frequently Asked Questions
How do Float and Runn compare in 2026?
On the data below, Runn leads on higher user rating and lower entry price. We do not name an overall winner for this pair. Runn has the higher user rating (4.4/5 from 45 reviews for Float, 4.8/5 from 34 reviews for Runn). Runn has the lower entry price: $7/mo, billed monthly (Lite) against $700/mo, billed monthly (Starter) for Float.
What are Float and Runn used for?
Float: Optimize resource allocation, plan projects profitably, and gain financial insights for your team. Runn: Strategic resource management software for maximizing capacity, utilization, and project delivery.
What does Float cost vs Runn?
Float's cheapest paid plan is Starter at $700/mo, billed monthly. Runn's cheapest paid plan is Lite at $7/mo, billed monthly. Prices read on the vendors' pricing pages, latest check Nov 2, 2026.
What's the main difference between Float and Runn?
Float's main strength: increases resourcing efficiency and on-time delivery. Runn's main strength: provides a single source of truth for resource data, reducing inconsistencies.