Float vs Runn vs Tempo (Capacity Forecasting Under Shifting Retainers)
The choice turns on forecast horizon rather than feature count: visual boards win when allocation changes daily, capacity planners win when staffing decisions are made weeks ahead. Agencies that pick a tool before deciding how far forward they actually staff end up rebuilding the same spreadsheet inside a paid product. Match the tool to the planning cadence your retainer mix demands, and revisit the decision when client concentration shifts.
By InnovaAI ResearchPublished
Which should an agency choose?
Float vs Runn vs Tempo (Capacity Forecasting Under Shifting Retainers)
Float
Best for: Agencies of 15 to 60 people who need one shared visual board and will accept lighter forecasting in exchange for adoption speed.- Visual scheduling with drag-and-drop allocation and capacity heatmaps that non-technical account leads can read without training
- Baseline budgets and timelines scoped against actual time, so project profitability sits next to the schedule rather than in a separate report
- Rigid schedule blocks resist mid-week reprioritization when a client pulls a launch forward
- Forecasting depth is thinner than dedicated capacity planners once you pass roughly 40 concurrent assignments
Runn
Best for: Retainer-heavy agencies where staffing decisions need a forward 8 to 12 week demand view, not just a current-week board.- Capacity charts compare team availability against project demand at the portfolio level, which surfaces overbooking before it reaches a timesheet
- Project financials sit alongside staffing decisions, so a rate change or scope cut is visible at the moment of assignment
- Setup requires clean project and role data; agencies running on ad hoc spreadsheets face a multi-week migration
- Smaller integration surface than time trackers that embed inside existing project management tools
Tempo
Best for: Agencies whose client delivery already lives in Jira and who want resource planning without a second system of record.- Jira-native capacity planning and timesheets keep delivery data in the tool engineering and product clients already use
- Portfolio views across multiple projects suit agencies running long-running client programs with shared specialists
- Value collapses if the agency does not run Jira as its delivery backbone
- Licensing stacks across the suite, so cost climbs with each module added
The choice turns on forecast horizon rather than feature count: visual boards win when allocation changes daily, capacity planners win when staffing decisions are made weeks ahead. Agencies that pick a tool before deciding how far forward they actually staff end up rebuilding the same spreadsheet inside a paid product. Match the tool to the planning cadence your retainer mix demands, and revisit the decision when client concentration shifts.