The buyer decision
Choose Float or Runn for capacity and tentative-work representation, excluding agency stacks and software economics.
Criteria & methodologyFloat and Runn are relevant resource-planning candidates. Compare how the proposed configuration represents availability and commitments, including work that is not yet confirmed.
A planning view is not a record of delivered work. This comparison does not calculate project profitability or select an integrated agency stack.
The documented starting points
Float describes capacity planning and resource scheduling in its Schedule, bringing people, projects and availability into a shared planning view.
Runn documents including or excluding individual tentative projects in planning calculations. The cited instructions apply to Lite and Legacy plans and explicitly direct Standard and Advanced customers to different instructions. Do not apply that legacy-plan behavior to every current Runn offer.
Those sources supply candidate models, not proof that one product is universally better.
| Decision requirement | What to request from both suppliers |
|---|---|
| Real person availability | Working schedule and relevant time-off context |
| Confirmed commitments | Assigned work and period clearly represented |
| Tentative work | Clear meaning and effect on the displayed capacity |
| Changed project dates | Visible revised demand |
| Historical planning context | Explanation of what persists after changes |
When to evaluate each direction
Evaluate Float when its documented schedule model fits the way the buyer assigns people and interprets availability. Evaluate Runn when tentative-project planning is central and the supplier can show the corresponding behavior in the exact current plan.
These are conditional directions. This publication has not established that either product lacks capabilities beyond the cited pages, nor tested interface speed or planning accuracy.
Compare one uncertain project
Use a fictional team with confirmed work and a possible new project. Ask each supplier to include and exclude the tentative commitment while explaining the displayed availability.
Change the potential project’s dates, then confirm only part of its work. Inspect whether the planner can distinguish confirmed demand from an assumption. A colorful utilization chart does not establish the meaning of those inputs.
Repeat the comparison with the package actually being offered. A demo using an entitlement outside that package cannot resolve the purchase requirement.
Keep the current planner if it fits
Choose the candidate whose demonstrated record model answers the requirement. Keep an existing planner where it already represents availability and uncertainty adequately. Switching needs a functional reason, not just a differently styled schedule.
Browse the Resource Planning hub and demo evidence framework for the remaining evaluation questions.