Best Resource Management Software for Engineering Firms

Website: https://www.float.com

Best for: Visual scheduling for project teams

Starting price: $7 per person/month (billed annually)

Free plan: Free trial (30 days)

Pros: Clear schedule view that shows overload at a glance; charges only for scheduled people

Cons: Time tracking sits on the Pro plan, not Starter; no native invoicing or budgeting

Float gives engineering managers a clean weekly view of who is booked, who is free and who is overloaded. That view matters in firms where structural, civil, mechanical and electrical engineers move between projects, and where one delayed design review can push several dependent tasks. The Starter plan covers resource scheduling, capacity and time off management, project scoping and API access, with unlimited projects and reporting.

The billing model suits firms that schedule only part of the team. Float charges per scheduled person, so admin staff who never appear on the schedule do not add to the bill. The trade off is scope: Float plans people and capacity well, but it is not a full project management or billing system. Firms that need budgets, invoices and detailed task tracking in the same place will pair it with other tools, and time tracking costs $12 per person per month on Pro.

Website: https://resourceguruapp.com

Best for: Simple people and equipment scheduling

Starting price: $5 per person/month (billed annually)

Free plan: Free trial (30 days)

Pros: Lowest entry price in this list; books equipment and rooms beside people

Cons: No project budgeting or revenue forecasting; reports need the Blackbelt plan

Resource Guru is a scheduling tool first, and it suits engineering firms that want bookings without a heavy setup. People, equipment and meeting rooms share one calendar, clash management flags double bookings, and leave tracking is built in. That mix fits firms that schedule survey gear, test rigs, lab time and shared vehicles beside their engineers, which many pure people planners cannot do.

The pricing page lists three plans: Grasshopper at $5 per person per month billed annually, Blackbelt at $8 and Master at $12. Grasshopper covers the essentials without reports, while Blackbelt adds timesheets, custom reports and custom fields. Other resources, such as equipment, cost less than a person seat. The limit is financial depth: there is no project budgeting and no revenue forecasting, so firms that bill by the hour and track margin will need a second tool or a higher tier.

Website: https://www.runn.io

Best for: Capacity and financial planning

Starting price: $7 per resource seat/month (billed annually)

Free plan: Free trial (30 days)

Pros: Combines scheduling with budgets and rate cards; clear utilization and capacity charts

Cons: Plans start at 20 resource seats; Lite has no timesheets and no API

Runn is built around financial planning first and scheduling second, which matches how many engineering firms think about work. It combines resource allocation with budget tracking, utilization reporting and revenue forecasting, so a project lead can see whether a team is booked, whether the budget covers the booked hours, and where capacity opens up next month. Placeholders let planners hold space for hires that have not started yet.

The pricing page lists Lite at $7 per resource seat per month billed annually, Standard at $11 and Advanced on request. Every plan starts at 20 seats, so a 12 person firm still pays for 20, which is $140 a month on Lite. People who only log in are free, and placeholders are free, since billing follows resource seats in the planner. The setup takes more care than Float or Resource Guru, because roles, rate cards and project budgets need to be defined before the views become useful.

Website: https://productive.io

Best for: Projects, budgets and resourcing in one place

Starting price: $9 per user/month (billed annually)

Free plan: Free trial (14 days)

Pros: Profitability reports from the entry plan; time tracking and budgets included

Cons: Three seat minimum on every plan; approvals need the Professional plan at $24

Productive runs projects, resourcing, budgets and time tracking in one platform, which suits engineering firms that want one source of truth for delivery and money. The Essential plan covers budgeting, resource planning, project and task management, docs, time tracking, expense management and reporting. Budget profitability is visible from Essential, so a project manager can spot a job that is drifting over budget before the month ends.

The pricing page totals $90 a month for 10 users on Essential, which is $9 per user per month, and $240 a month for 10 users on Professional, which is $24 per user per month, with Ultimate on a custom quote. Every plan needs at least 3 seats, so the smallest bill is $27 a month on Essential. The step to Professional is steep, and it is the tier that adds billable time approvals, recurring budgets and invoicing integrations. Firms that only need scheduling may find Productive heavier than Float or Runn, but firms that bill clients for engineering time get real value from the combined view.

Website: https://www.scoro.com

Best for: Quote to cash for larger service firms

Starting price: €15 per user/month

Free plan: Free trial (14 days)

Pros: Covers quoting, delivery and billing in one system; modular apps fit different teams

Cons: Five seat minimum on every combination; the entry price covers only part of the suite

Scoro is a professional services automation platform that covers the whole workflow from quoting to delivery to billing. Engineering firms that sell fixed fee design packages will recognise the flow: a quote becomes a project, the project carries tasks and time, and time feeds invoices and financial reports. The Resource app handles capacity planning beside the project and finance apps, so utilization and margin sit in the same system.

Pricing works by combination rather than by one flat tier. The pricing page says the price per user starts from 15 EUR per user per month and rises as apps are added, with annual billing giving a discount of 13 to 17 percent depending on currency and combination. Every combination has a minimum of 5 seats. That modular model is flexible, but it makes budgeting harder, since the figure a firm actually pays depends on which of the eight core apps it turns on.

Website: https://monday.com

Best for: Visual boards for cross team planning

Starting price: $9 per seat/month (billed annually)

Free plan: Yes

Pros: Free plan for up to 2 seats; visual boards that non technical staff grasp fast

Cons: Automations and time tracking need higher tiers; seats are sold in fixed buckets

monday.com is a visual work platform built around boards, and engineering firms often use it to plan work that spans design, procurement and site teams. Boards can hold project phases, deliverables and owners, while timeline and Gantt views show how work sequences across weeks. The free plan covers up to 2 seats and 3 boards, which is enough for a small team to test the shape of the tool.

The pricing page lists Basic at $9 per seat per month billed annually, Standard at $12 and Pro at $19, with Enterprise on a custom quote. Every plan on the work platform starts at 3 seats, and seats are sold in fixed buckets, so a 7 person team pays for 10 seats. Basic has no automation allowance of note, and time tracking and private boards need Pro. Firms that choose monday.com for resource management should budget for Standard or Pro, and check the workload view, which is the feature that turns boards into capacity planning.

Website: https://www.smartsheet.com

Best for: Spreadsheet style plans and Gantt charts

Starting price: $9 per member/month (billed annually)

Free plan: Free trial (30 days)

Pros: Familiar grid layout with formulas; Gantt, board and calendar views included on Pro

Cons: Pro stops at 10 members and 250 automations a month; no free plan for new signups

Smartsheet suits engineering teams that already plan in rows, dates and formulas. The grid layout feels familiar to anyone who has run a project in a spreadsheet, while Gantt charts, dashboards and reports add the structure that a plain sheet lacks. Pro includes unlimited sheets, forms and reports, 20 GB of storage and 250 automation runs a month, which covers status updates and approval reminders for a small team.

The pricing page lists Pro at $9 per member per month billed annually, or $12 billed monthly, and Business at $19 billed annually. Pro is capped at 10 members and is only sold to new customers, while Business needs at least 3 members. There is no free plan for new signups, only a 30 day trial. Smartsheet is a strong fit for firms that want flexible plans and reporting, but it is not a dedicated resource scheduler, so capacity views need to be built with formulas and reports rather than taken as standard.

Website: https://www.kantata.com

Best for: Enterprise PSA for large consulting benches

Starting price: quote only

Free plan: No

Pros: Deep forecasting and skills based resourcing across a large bench; strong Salesforce links

Cons: No public price, so budgeting needs a sales process; implementation takes weeks

Kantata is the enterprise option in this list, formed from the merger of Mavenlink and Kimble. It is built for large professional services firms that staff by skills across many concurrent projects, with role based demand, skills matching and forecasting across a big bench of consultants. For a large engineering consultancy with several offices, that depth matters: planners can search for a structural engineer with a given skill and availability, then model the margin before committing to a bid.

Kantata does not publish pricing, so there is no list figure to compare until a sales conversation produces a written quote. Third party listings suggest a high per user figure, but those are estimates, not vendor prices, so this guide records quote only. Implementation is also a real cost: published guidance points to 6 to 8 weeks for a mid sized firm, and longer for larger ones. Firms below about 100 billable people will usually find a lighter tool faster and cheaper, while larger firms with a dedicated operations owner can justify the depth.