Best Time Tracking Software for Research Teams

Website: https://toggl.com

Best for: research teams that want a simple timer and clean reports

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

Free plan: Yes, up to 5 users

Pros: one-click timer across desktop, web and mobile; more than 100 integrations with project tools

Cons: profitability reports and timesheet approvals need Premium at $16 per user per month billed annually; no built-in invoicing

Toggl Track suits a research team that splits its week across grants, studies and teaching. A researcher starts the timer in one click, picks the grant as the project, and the entry lands in a shared report that a lab manager can read before a funding review. Starter costs $9 per user per month billed annually and adds billable rates, project time estimates and scheduled reports on top of the free plan, which covers up to 5 users.

The gap is billing and approvals. Toggl Track has no built-in invoicing, so hours must be exported before a finance office sees them, and approvals sit on Premium at $16 per user per month billed annually. For a small lab that only needs clean hours by grant, Toggl Track is an easy pick, and the 30-day trial of Premium gives a full month to test the higher tier.

Website: https://clockify.me

Best for: research teams on a tight budget

Starting price: $3.99 per user/month (billed annually)

Free plan: Yes, up to 5 users

Pros: low entry price with a free plan for up to 5 users; calendar view and detailed time reports

Cons: invoicing, timesheet approvals and time off start at Standard at $5.49 per user per month billed annually; project budgets, profitability, GPS and screenshots start at Pro at $7.99

Clockify is the cheapest way to give a research team a shared record of hours by grant. The free plan covers up to 5 users, and Basic at $3.99 per user per month billed annually adds project templates, time off policies and the ability to hide pages from regular users. A principal investigator can see how many hours went to each grant this month, and whether a study is drawing more time than its budget allows.

The limits show up as the lab grows. Invoicing and approvals sit on Standard, while budgets and profitability sit on Pro, so a 20-person team that reports to funders will likely land on Pro at $7.99 per user per month billed annually. Even then, the total stays below most rivals, which matters when the budget comes from a fixed grant.

Website: https://www.getharvest.com

Best for: research teams that bill grants and clients by the hour

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

Free plan: Yes, 1 seat and 2 projects

Pros: simple timers plus invoicing from tracked time; expense tracking built in

Cons: profitability reporting, timesheet approvals, activity log and single sign-on need Enterprise at $14 per seat per month billed annually; Flex usage fees apply for invoices, projects, clients and tasks

Harvest pairs a timer with an invoice, which fits a research consultancy or a lab that bills sponsors for hours. Researchers log time against grants and tasks, a manager reviews the week, and Harvest turns the approved hours into an invoice with expenses attached. The Teams plan costs $9 per seat per month billed annually and includes unlimited projects, clients and invoices, plus integrations with tools such as Asana, Slack and QuickBooks.

The free plan covers only 1 seat and 2 projects, so it works for a solo researcher and not much beyond that. Enterprise at $14 per seat per month billed annually adds approvals, profitability reporting and single sign-on, which a larger research group will want when funder reports matter. Harvest also charges Flex usage fees on top of the seat price, so check the pricing page for the current fee schedule before budgeting.

Website: https://timely.com

Best for: research teams that forget to start timers

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

Free plan: Free trial (14 days)

Pros: automatic AI-drafted timesheets from app and calendar activity; clean team capacity views

Cons: no free plan; Starter is capped at 5 users and 20 projects; task-level timers cost an extra $5 per user per month

Timely solves the most common time tracking failure in research: people forgetting to start the timer while they read, write or run experiments. Its Memory feature records app and calendar activity and drafts a timesheet from it, so a researcher reviews and confirms the day instead of reconstructing it from memory. Starter costs $9 per user per month billed annually and includes automatic time tracking, the AI-drafted timesheet and team capacity views, with a 14-day trial and no credit card required.

The Starter limits are tight. Five users and 20 projects cover a small lab and no more, and task-level timers cost an extra $5 per user per month. Premium at $16 per user per month billed annually removes the caps and adds project budgets and profitability. Timely is a strong pick for a small research team that values accurate hours over detailed monitoring.

Website: https://www.timecamp.com

Best for: research teams that want automatic tracking at a low price

Starting price: $3.99 per user/month (billed annually)

Free plan: Yes, unlimited users and projects

Pros: free plan covers unlimited users and projects; automatic tracking with invoicing

Cons: billable rates, labor costs and timesheet approvals need Ultimate at $9.99 per user per month billed annually; Premium allows only 1 integration

TimeCamp has the most generous free plan on this list: unlimited users and unlimited projects, with no user cap at all. That makes it the easiest tool to try with a whole research group at once, since nobody has to count seats before inviting staff, postdocs and assistants. Starter costs $3.99 per user per month billed annually and adds automatic time tracking, invoicing and basic reporting, with a 14-day trial and no credit card required.

The free plan is generous, but the higher features are gated firmly. Billable rates, labor costs and timesheet approvals need Ultimate at $9.99 per user per month billed annually, and the Premium tier allows only 1 integration. For a research team that mainly needs hours logged by grant and invoiced, TimeCamp delivers a lot for very little money.

Website: https://everhour.com

Best for: research teams already using Asana, Trello, Jira or ClickUp

Starting price: $8.50 per user/month (billed annually)

Free plan: Yes, up to 5 users

Pros: time tracking inside Asana, Trello, Jira and ClickUp; budgets and invoicing included

Cons: Team has a 5-seat minimum, so the smallest billing account is $42.50 per month billed annually; free plan has no project-management integrations

Everhour is the right choice when a research team already lives inside a project tool and does not want a second home for time. It adds timers, estimates, budgets and invoices directly inside Asana, Trello, Jira, ClickUp, Basecamp and Monday, so hours are logged where the study work already sits. The Team plan costs $8.50 per user per month billed annually and includes budgets, invoicing, approvals and reporting, with a 14-day trial and no credit card required.

The catch is the seat minimum. Team requires at least 5 seats, so the smallest billing account costs $42.50 per month billed annually even if only three people track time. The free plan covers up to 5 users but has no project-management integrations, which removes the main reason to pick Everhour in the first place. For a research team of five or more that already uses one of the supported tools, Everhour is hard to beat.

Website: https://www.paymoapp.com

Best for: small research teams that bill sponsors

Starting price: $10.90 per user/month (billed annually)

Free plan: Yes, 1 user, 1 client, 2 projects

Pros: projects, time tracking and invoicing in one tool; Gantt charts and scheduling on Pro

Cons: Free and Solo are single-user, so a team must pay Plus at $10.90 per user per month billed annually; Gantt charts, scheduling, workload and timesheet approvals are Pro only at $16.90

Paymo suits a small research team that wants one tool for projects, time and invoices instead of three. The Plus plan costs $10.90 per user per month billed annually and covers team time tracking, project templates, invoicing and expenses. A researcher logs hours against a study, a manager approves the week, and Paymo turns the approved time into an invoice without leaving the app.

The single-user limits shape the whole decision. The free plan covers 1 user, 1 client and 2 projects, and Solo at $5.90 per user per month billed annually is also single-user, so any team must pay Plus. Gantt charts, scheduling, workload and timesheet approvals need Pro at $16.90 per user per month billed annually. Paymo is a strong pick for a research team of 3 to 15 people, and a weak pick for a larger group that needs capacity planning.

Website: https://asana.com

Best for: research teams that run studies as structured projects

Starting price: $10.99 per user/month (billed annually)

Free plan: Yes, Personal, up to 2 users

Pros: task lists, timelines and portfolios for multi-study programs; native time tracking on Starter

Cons: Gantt, portfolios, workload, native time tracking and approvals need Advanced at $24.99 per user per month billed annually; free plan has no Gantt view

Asana is a project platform first, which suits research teams that plan studies as task lists with owners, due dates and dependencies. The Starter plan costs $10.99 per user per month billed annually and includes Gantt views, project templates, and native time tracking on tasks, with a 30-day trial of the higher plans. A lab can run a study as a project, track hours on each task, and see the timeline in one place.

The free Personal plan covers up to 2 users with unlimited tasks and projects, but it has no Gantt view, so it works for a pair of collaborators and not much beyond that. Portfolios, workload, native time tracking and approvals need Advanced at $24.99 per user per month billed annually. Asana fits research teams that want task structure first and are willing to pay Advanced for the full time tracking and workload picture.