One platform gives you unlimited free users with basic tracking. The other bundles invoicing and expense management into a polished paid experience. The choice comes down to budget versus built-in billing.
Both are well-established time trackers, but they target different buyers. The budget-first tool (launched 2017) built its reputation on a generous free tier that puts no cap on team size. The invoicing-first tool (launched 2006) focused on professional services firms that need time-to-invoice workflows in a single app. This comparison covers pricing, features, invoicing, and team management — plus a gap both share when it comes to tracking AI agent work.
How Do the Free Plans Compare?
The free tier is where these tools diverge most. Here is what each offers at no cost.
| Feature | Budget-First Platform | Invoicing-First Platform |
|---|---|---|
| Users | Unlimited | 1 |
| Projects | Unlimited | 2 |
| Time tracking | Timer + manual + kiosk | Timer + manual |
| Reporting | Basic (summary, detailed, weekly) | Basic (time, project) |
| Invoicing | No (paid plans only) | Yes |
| Expense tracking | No | No (Pro plan only) |
| Integrations | 80+ | 50+ |
| API access | Yes | Yes |
Verdict: The budget-focused tool offers a genuinely usable free plan for teams of any size. The invoicing-focused tool’s free tier is effectively a single-user trial — one seat and two projects make it impractical for teams.
For freelancers managing more than two clients, the budget-first platform’s free plan is the clear winner. The invoicing-first tool only becomes competitive once you upgrade to Pro.
How Does Pricing Scale for Teams?
Once you need paid features, the cost picture shifts.
| Team Size | Budget-First (Standard) | Budget-First (Pro) | Invoicing-First (Pro) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 users | £27.45/month | £39.95/month | £54/month |
| 10 users | £54.90/month | £79.90/month | £108/month |
| 25 users | £137.25/month | £199.75/month | £270/month |
| 50 users | £274.50/month | £399.50/month | £540/month |
At every team size, the budget-focused platform costs less. The gap widens with larger teams: at 50 users, the difference between the invoicing-first Pro plan and the budget-first Standard plan is £265 per month — over £3,000 saved annually.
However, price alone does not tell the full story. The invoicing-first platform includes native invoicing and expense tracking at the Pro tier, which could replace a separate billing tool. If you currently pay for invoicing software, factor that cost into the comparison.
What Are the Key Feature Differences?
Time Tracking Methods
The budget-first tool offers a manual timer, timesheet view, and a shared kiosk mode. The kiosk is useful for on-site teams where multiple people clock in from one device. Industry reviewers describe it as a tool that “does exactly what it says on the tin.” No complexity, no friction.
The invoicing-first tool provides timer and manual entry tied directly to projects and tasks. Every time entry maps to a client and project, making it easy to generate invoices from tracked hours. The interface is clean and purpose-built for billing workflows.
Neither tool offers automatic desktop time tracking — a feature found in some competitors.
Reporting
The budget-focused platform provides summary, detailed, and weekly report views with exportable data. You can filter by project, user, or date range. The dashboards are functional but not highly visual.
The invoicing-first platform focuses on project budgets and team capacity. You can see how much time is left on a budget, which team members are at capacity, and where hours are going. According to industry analysis, this makes it “especially useful for agencies tracking profitability per client.”
For teams that need rich visual dashboards or profitability analysis, neither is the strongest option. Both deliver solid basic reporting with different strengths — the budget tool has broader filtering, the billing tool has budget-tracking depth.
Project and Team Management
The budget-first tool includes unlimited projects, timesheet approval workflows, and schedule management on paid plans. Team roles and permissions are available from the Standard tier.
The invoicing-first tool supports project-level permissions, per-member billable rates, and team capacity views. Its project budget tracking is tighter — you set a budget in hours or money and get alerts as you approach the limit.
Integrations and API
The budget-first platform connects with 80+ tools including popular project management and development platforms. The invoicing-first tool integrates with around 50 applications, with particular strength in accounting software. Both offer API access and browser extensions.
How Does Invoicing Compare?
This is the invoicing-first platform’s strongest advantage.
| Invoicing Feature | Budget-First Platform | Invoicing-First Platform |
|---|---|---|
| Native invoicing | Paid plans only | Yes (including free plan) |
| Payment collection | No | Yes (via payment processors) |
| Expense tracking | No | Yes (Pro plan) |
| Billable rates per member | Yes (paid) | Yes |
| Auto-populate from tracked hours | Yes (paid) | Yes |
| Professional invoice templates | Basic | Polished, customisable |
The invoicing-first tool was built around the billing cycle. Tracked billable hours flow directly into professional invoices. You can collect payments through integrated payment processors, log project expenses, and attach receipts to client projects. One reviewer noted it is “very different from basic trackers — you can create a professional invoice right here without switching apps.”
The budget-first platform added invoicing to its paid plans, but it is less mature. There is no expense tracking and the invoice templates are more basic. For teams that send regular client invoices, the invoicing-first tool saves meaningful time.
What Does Neither Tool Track? AI Agent Work
Both platforms were designed for human workers. Timers, manual entry, kiosk mode — all assume a person is doing the work. Neither can record tasks performed by an AI agent.
According to Deloitte’s 2025 enterprise survey, 25% of large organisations expected AI agents to perform autonomous work by year end. Teams deploying AI coding agents, research assistants, or content generators already have billable work happening through machines. Their time trackers cannot capture it.
| Capability | Budget-First | Invoicing-First | AI-Native Platform |
|---|---|---|---|
| Human time tracking | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| AI agent task logging | No | No | Yes |
| Token/API cost tracking | No | No | Yes |
| Hybrid team dashboards | No | No | Yes |
| Agent performance reports | No | No | Yes |
| Unified billing (human + AI) | No | No | Yes |
If your team runs AI agents alongside human workers, you need a platform built for both human and AI time tracking. The gap is not something either tool can patch with an integration — it requires a fundamentally different tracking architecture that captures compute time, token usage, and task-level costs.
This ties directly into the question of how to track billable hours when some of those hours are machine-generated.
Which Should You Choose?
Choose the budget-first platform if: You need free tracking for an unlimited team, want low-cost paid upgrades, and do not rely on native invoicing. It suits startups, internal teams, and budget-conscious organisations where basic time data is the primary need.
Choose the invoicing-first platform if: You bill clients hourly, track project expenses, and want a single tool for time-to-invoice workflows. It is the better fit for agencies, consultancies, law firms, and professional services teams where billing accuracy drives revenue.
Choose an AI-native platform if: Your team deploys AI agents for client work and needs unified tracking across human and machine workers. Neither traditional tool handles this. Look for a platform that tracks billable hours for AI agent work and human time in a single dashboard.
For a broader comparison of how these tools stack up against another leading competitor, see our Toggl vs Clockify and Harvest vs Toggl comparisons.
Key Takeaway
The budget-first tool wins on price and free-tier generosity. The invoicing-first tool wins on billing workflows. Neither tracks AI agent work.
Need Time Tracking That Includes AI Agents?
Keito tracks humans and AI agents in one platform. No separate tools for agent billing.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Clockify really free?
Yes. The budget-focused platform offers a genuinely free plan with unlimited users, unlimited projects, and basic reporting. There are no time limits or trial periods. Paid plans (from £3.99/user/month) add features like invoicing, timesheet approvals, and advanced reporting, but the free tier is fully functional for basic tracking.
Does Harvest have better invoicing than Clockify?
Yes. The invoicing-first platform includes native invoicing with payment collection, expense tracking, and polished invoice templates. It was built around billing workflows. The budget-first tool added invoicing on paid plans, but the feature is more basic — no expense tracking, simpler templates, and no integrated payment collection.
Which is better for freelancers, Clockify or Harvest?
It depends on your workflow. If you send regular client invoices and track expenses, the invoicing-first tool saves you from using a separate billing app — even on its free plan (though limited to two projects). If you juggle more than two projects and want free tracking without limits, the budget-first platform is the practical choice.
Can Clockify or Harvest track AI agent time?
No. Neither platform tracks work performed by AI agents. Both are designed for human time tracking via timers, manual entry, and kiosk mode. Tracking AI agent work requires event-based logging of API calls, token usage, and compute costs — a different architecture that neither tool supports.
What is the cheapest time tracking tool for teams?
The budget-focused platform is among the cheapest options available. Its free plan has no user cap, making it effectively free for teams of any size. Paid plans start at £3.99/user/month for basic upgrades. The invoicing-first platform starts at £10.80/seat/month with no comparable free team option.