Best Time Tracking Software: 5 Tools Honestly Compared

As of August 2026. The feature sets and prices of the providers named here change regularly; this article is updated accordingly.

Anyone choosing time tracking software by price per user or app store rating often ends up buying twice. The first system covers the legal recording obligation but delivers no usable project data. Two years later comes the second selection process, this time including data migration and another rollout.

This comparison therefore takes a different perspective. It crowns no overall winner among the five tools. Using four criteria, it shows which tool fits which usage profile.

The key points in brief

• Five tools compared: ZEP, awork, clockodo, Papershift and factorial
• Four selection criteria: project focus, billing, GDPR and DACH compliance, price
• Entry prices range from €2 to €18 per user per month
• Every tool has a clear usage profile; none fits every requirement
• The decisive factor is your time horizon: compliance today or project steering tomorrow

Why choosing time tracking software is a cost decision

The market is growing fast and becoming harder to navigate as a result. According to a market forecast, the global volume for time tracking software rises from around USD 3.9 billion in 2025 to over USD 18 billion by 2035. Correspondingly many providers position themselves as the best time tracking software for every purpose.

For companies with a project business, the choice is nonetheless not a purely IT question. A system that records hours cleanly but assigns them to no billing logic simply relocates the work. Preparation then moves into Excel, usually to whoever owns the month-end close.

The consequences of a wrong decision show up directly at project level:

• Billable hours are lost to invoicing because the project assignment is missing
• Project managers see budget deviations only at month-end instead of during delivery
• Utilisation and resource planning rest on estimates rather than actual data
• Follow-on projects are costed on an unreliable effort history
• Finance and project teams maintain parallel lists that never fully match

A cheap tool with high downstream costs is the expensive tool in the end. So before the price question comes the question of usage profile.

What must time tracking software deliver in 2026?

The legal obligation as a baseline

Since the German Federal Labour Court ruling of 13 September 2022 (case no. 1 ABR 22/21), employers must record the start, end and duration of daily working time. The legal basis is Section 3 (2) no. 1 of the German Occupational Safety and Health Act. Paper lists and uncontrolled Excel sheets generally no longer meet the requirements for objective and reliable recording.

All five tools compared here meet this obligation. It is therefore no use as a selection criterion. The differences begin beyond it.

Documenting working time or steering project time?

Working time recording answers the compliance question: who worked when and for how long? Project time tracking additionally assigns each hour to a project, a service type and a billing logic. Only that assignment makes time data commercially usable.

For IT consultancies, management consultancies and engineering firms, this is the decisive difference. A pure attendance tool delivers compliance. A project-capable system additionally delivers the data basis for project controlling, capacity planning and client billing.

Reporting and analytics as a basis for decisions

Recorded hours are raw data. They only become usable through reporting: how much time went into which project, what share was billable, how does consumption stand against the budget? So check which reports a system delivers without an export, and whether analyses can be freely combined by client, project and employee.

Pure trackers deliver hours overviews and CSV exports here. Systems with integrated controlling deliver planned-versus-actual comparisons, utilisation reports and margin views from the same data. That difference decides how much working time is still needed for preparation after the hours have been recorded.

Mobile recording as a standard requirement

According to the ifo business survey of February 2026, 76.4 per cent of employees at IT service providers work remotely at least part of the time. Among management consultants the figure is 67.6 per cent. In these sectors, software without reliable mobile recording inevitably produces retrospective entries and estimated values.

What matters is not only whether an app exists, but whether it works offline and synchronises entries afterwards. On multi-day assignments at a client site, that decides whether work is documented daily or reconstructed after the fact. The article on time tracking via app covers the further requirements in detail.

GDPR, server location and certification

Time tracking software processes personal data and therefore falls fully under the GDPR. For many companies with clients in regulated sectors, the server location is a knockout criterion. A server location in Germany noticeably reduces the effort of aligning with data protection officers.

An ISO 27001 certification additionally documents an audited information security management system. Check these details directly with the provider before deciding, as they can change.

How we compared: criteria and methodology

Transparency first: this comparison comes from ZEP, one of the five providers compared. The assessment is based on publicly available feature descriptions and pricing from the providers, as of August 2026. Despite careful research, subjective judgements can never be entirely excluded.

The four assessment criteria

We examined the five tools against four criteria that regularly prove decisive in selection processes at companies with 20 to 250 employees:

1. Project focus: can hours be assigned to projects, tasks and service types? Is there a resource and budget view?
2. Billing: is there a continuous path from time entry to invoice or payroll? Where do handovers break?
3. GDPR and DACH compliance: are the recording obligation, data protection and documented security standards covered?
4. Price: what does entry cost per user per month, and what is included?

The limits of this comparison

The product tiers compared are not identical in every respect. With Clock, Compact and Professional, ZEP offers three tiers of differing scope, while other providers bundle their features into one package. We therefore compare the functionally equivalent entry tier in each case.

Prices and feature sets change regularly. Check current provider information before any purchase decision. The comparison of seven time tracking systems gives a broader market overview across system categories.

5 time tracking software solutions compared directly

The overview shows the four criteria for all five tools at a glance:

Assessment based on publicly available provider information, as of August 2026.

ZEP: a platform for the project business

ZEP is built as a modular platform for project service providers. Entry via ZEP Clock covers working time, absence and travel expense recording in line with DACH requirements. ZEP Compact adds project time tracking, task management, resource planning and project controlling on the same data basis.

Reports come out of that data without an intermediate step: planned-versus-actual comparisons per project, utilisation per employee, margin views per client. Anyone wanting to generate quotes and invoices straight from time data uses ZEP Professional. Development and hosting are entirely in Germany, and the provider is ISO 27001 certified. The modular structure avoids a system change when the company outgrows pure recording.

Strongest usage profile: companies whose time data is billing-relevant and who think in terms of controlling.

awork Business: project management with time tracking

awork Business bundles task planning, project management and time tracking into one cloud platform. Resource planning is included and the interface is considered easy for teams to adopt. For operational project work, the combination of tasks and time entry in one interface is appealing.

Integrated invoicing is missing, however, as are travel expenses and modular expansion of the feature set. Quoting and billing processes therefore run through external tools. At €18 per user, entry sits at the upper end of this comparison.

Strongest usage profile: teams that primarily plan tasks and projects and deliberately keep billing external.

clockodo Pro: lean project time tracking

clockodo Pro is a flexible tool for working and project time tracking on desktop and mobile. It provides real-time overviews of hours worked, break management in line with legal requirements, plus client and project administration. An integrated calendar covers holidays and absences.

Resource planning, travel expense management and modular extensions are not included. Single sign-on is only available at extra cost. The hours data is clean, but you have to connect it to budgets and service types outside the tool.

Strongest usage profile: smaller teams that record against projects and manage without integrated controlling.

Papershift Core: workforce scheduling for shift operations

Papershift Core is a cloud-based personnel management solution focused on shift scheduling. Scheduling accounts for availability, qualifications and legal requirements. Time tracking, absence management and holiday accounts are integrated.

Interfaces to common payroll systems cover the payroll process, and a hardware terminal is optionally available via easysecure. A project emphasis with service types, budgets or client billing is not part of the profile.

Strongest usage profile: businesses with shift models, such as hospitality, retail or care, without project-based billing.

factorial: HR suite with a time tracking module

factorial is a cloud-based HR solution for small and medium-sized companies. The focus is on personnel processes: absence management, payroll, applicant tracking, digital personnel files and HR reporting. Time tracking runs via desktop, app or hardware terminal, and project hours and travel expenses are included.

Resource planning and dedicated client administration are missing, because the product core is built for HR rather than project steering. Extensions are possible, but in the direction of further HR modules. At €7 per user, entry is moderate.

Strongest usage profile: companies looking for an HR suite that treat time tracking as one personnel module among several.

Which tool fits when?

The honest answer to the question of the best time tracking software is: it depends on your business model. Four typical starting positions show the mapping.

You primarily need statutory recording

If compliance documentation is your main requirement, several of the tools compared work solidly. clockodo Pro covers this case at €10 per user, ZEP Clock starts at €2. In this scenario, focus on usability and mobile recording, because both determine acceptance in the team.

Your staff work in shifts

For rosters, availability and qualification logic, Papershift is the clearest choice among the five tools. ZEP deliberately does not serve this scenario; the product focus is entirely on the project business. This delineation saves you a mistaken purchase in either direction.

HR processes are the priority

If you want to bundle applicant tracking, personnel files and payroll into one system, factorial is the fitting candidate. Its time tracking serves its purpose as an HR module. It is not built for reliable project controlling, and you should factor that in consciously.

Your time data has to be billed and steered

As soon as hours are invoiced to clients, the requirement changes fundamentally. What counts now is whether billable hours are cleanly separated from internal time and whether actual data runs directly against budgets. awork delivers the planning side here but needs external tools for billing.

ZEP is built for exactly this scenario. Time entry, resource planning, project controlling and invoicing work on one data basis, with no exports and no manual reconciliation. For IT consultancies with change requests, consultancies steering by utilisation and engineering firms with milestone-based projects, this continuous path is the real differentiator in this comparison.

The mapping by business model at a glance

• IT consultancies, management consultancies and engineering firms billing clients: ZEP, because project time, resources, controlling and billing connect on one data basis.
• Teams focused on task and project planning, billing deliberately external: awork Business.
• Small teams and freelancers with simple recording needs: clockodo Pro.
• Businesses with shift operations, such as hospitality, retail or care: Papershift Core.
• SMEs focused on classic HR processes: factorial.

{{blog-cta}}

Three mistakes that make selection processes expensive

Price per user as the only criterion

A tool at €3 per month without project assignment creates downstream costs through manual preparation before every billing run. The total cost of ownership then sits well above the list price. Include the working time for rework honestly in your comparison.

Ratings instead of requirements

App store ratings predominantly reflect individual users and very small teams. They do not answer whether a piece of software carries 80 parallel projects and 50 users cleanly. So test with a real, live project rather than the provider's demo data.

Ignoring the growth path

A system that suffices today and needs a second tool alongside it in two years creates double rollout costs. Ask actively: what happens when we grow from 30 to 100 employees? Modularly extendable systems avoid the second system change and its data migration.

Conclusion: four steps to a decision

Make your choice along your business model rather than along feature lists:

1. Clarify the core need: pure recording obligation, shift operations, HR suite or project business with billing
2. Weigh the four criteria of project focus, billing, GDPR compliance and price against your priorities
3. Factor the downstream cost of manual rework into the price comparison; the article on the cost of time tracking systems gives an overview
4. Test the two best candidates with a real project and real entries

For businesses with shift models the path leads to Papershift, for HR-centred organisations to factorial. Anyone billing hours to clients and wanting to steer projects commercially should test ZEP with a real project. The trial runs for 14 days and shows whether the path from time entry to invoice fits your processes.