Onplana vs Teamwork.com: Billing Depth vs Schedule Depth
Onplana vs Teamwork: Teamwork wins on agency billing and profitability. Onplana wins on scheduling, with 4 dependency types and critical path on every plan.
Agencies comparing Onplana and Teamwork.com usually start the evaluation on the wrong axis. Both show up on the same shortlist because both target client-services delivery, but the reflex is to compare them on billing first, and billing is the one place Teamwork was built to win.
The direct answer: Teamwork.com is purpose-built for agency economics: billable time, retainers, and per-project profitability tracking that Onplana does not attempt to match feature for feature. Onplana is built around the schedule itself: all four dependency types with lag and a calculated critical path on every plan including Free, where Teamwork's own documentation describes two dependency types and no critical path calculation at all. The right choice depends on which gap costs your agency more.
Teamwork.com wins on agency-specific billing: time budgets, retainer management, client invoicing from logged time, and an AI Forecaster for margin prediction, at Accelerate ($24.99/user/month) and Optimize (custom pricing) tiers. Onplana wins on scheduling depth: FS, SS, FF, and SF dependencies with lag, plus a calculated critical path, on every plan including Free, where Teamwork supports only finish-to-start and finish-finish. Onplana's pricing is fully published through Enterprise; Teamwork's two highest, most billing-capable tiers require a sales call. Full matrix at the compare hub.
What Teamwork.com Actually Does Well
Give Teamwork credit for building specifically toward the problem professional-services firms actually have: knowing whether a project is making money before it closes, not after. Its platform centers on "real margin on every project, in real time," with budget alerts before a project overspends and utilization reporting that shows who's at capacity and who has room for more work. That framing, project economics as the primary view rather than an add-on report, is a genuine strength most general-purpose PM tools don't attempt.
Teamwork's paid tiers layer agency-specific workflow on top: time budgets and retainer tracking at Accelerate, client invoicing generated directly from logged time, and an AI Forecaster that predicts project profitability from current burn. TeamworkAI, available on every paid plan, adds named AI assistants (Scout, Flo, Remi, Kash) built on Claude and ChatGPT for drafting and summarization inside the workflow. For an agency whose main operating question is "which of our clients are actually profitable," Teamwork answers it more directly than most competitors in its price range.
Where Teamwork's Scheduling Engine Falls Short
The gap shows up once a project needs more than a punch list with due dates. Teamwork's own support documentation describes two dependency types: finish-to-start, the default, and finish-finish, switchable per task. There is no start-to-start or start-to-finish relationship, and no mention anywhere in Teamwork's documentation of critical path calculation or highlighting. For a straightforward client engagement with mostly sequential work, that's rarely a problem. For a project with genuine parallel tracks, design and development starting together, for instance, the dependency model can't express the relationship accurately, and there is no calculated critical path to tell a PM which slipping task actually threatens the deadline.
Onplana's scheduling engine supports all four standard dependency types with lag time on every plan, including Free, and calculates critical path from the live dependency graph rather than requiring a separate report. Dependency types, explained in full covers why the distinction between finish-to-start and start-to-start changes how fast a schedule can actually run when tasks can overlap safely.
Onplana vs Teamwork: Eight Dimensions Compared
| Dimension | Onplana | Teamwork.com |
|---|---|---|
| Task dependencies | FS, SS, FF, SF + lag, every plan | Finish-to-start, finish-finish only |
| Critical path | Calculated from dependency graph, every plan | Not documented as a feature |
| Billable rates | Rate cards (per-user, role, org-default), every plan | Billable time reporting from Basics ($9.99/user/mo) |
| Retainers & client invoicing | Not a dedicated workflow | Retainer management + invoicing at Accelerate+ |
| Resource capacity planning | Included from Professional ($12/user/mo) | Live workload capacity at Accelerate+; skill-based scheduling at Optimize |
| AI features | Plan gen, chat, status drafts on every plan; risk detection + portfolio insights at Business+ | TeamworkAI (Claude/ChatGPT-based assistants) on paid plans; AI Forecaster for profitability at Optimize |
| Deployment | SaaS or self-hosted (AWS, Azure, GCP, Docker) | SaaS only, no on-premise option |
| Pricing transparency | Free, $7, $12, $20, $29, all published | Two of five tiers (Optimize, Enterprise) are custom quotes |
The diagram below compares the two tools on the axis each one was actually built around.
Pricing: Published Rates vs a Sales Call
Teamwork's five-tier lineup runs Free, Basics ($9.99/user/month), Accelerate ($24.99/user/month), Optimize, and Enterprise, with the last two priced only after a sales conversation. That matters because Optimize is where skill-based resource scheduling, multi-currency budget tracking, and profitability insights live, exactly the features an agency evaluating Teamwork is usually there for. Budgeting a rollout means a call before you know the real number.
Onplana's five tiers, Free, Starter ($7), Professional ($12), Business ($20), and Enterprise ($29), are published in full, with resource capacity planning and rate cards available well before the top tier. An agency can build an accurate cost model from Onplana's pricing page alone; the equivalent exercise on Teamwork's two most billing-capable tiers requires a quote.
Which One Wins
Teamwork wins for: agencies whose primary operating question is real-time project profitability, teams that want retainer management and client invoicing built into the same tool that tracks the work, and firms comfortable with a sales-negotiated price once they need the deepest financial tooling.
Onplana wins for: teams running projects with genuine parallel work that a two-dependency-type model can't represent accurately, PMOs that need a calculated critical path without a separate report, agencies that want resource capacity planning and rate cards without climbing to a custom-quoted tier, and any team that needs a self-hosted deployment option, which Teamwork does not offer at all.
If resource utilization and overallocation are the specific problem pushing your agency to re-evaluate its PM tool, the free Resource Heatmap shows where a team is over or under capacity before you commit to either platform's resource-planning tier. The best project management software roundup covers the wider field including both Onplana and Teamwork, alongside a dozen others, evaluated on the same criteria, and the rest of the Onplana blog covers the scheduling and resource-management topics this comparison touches in more depth.
Run the free Resource Heatmap See who's overallocated and who has room for more work in about ten minutes, before you commit to either tool's resource-planning tier. No signup required. → Open the Resource Heatmap
Frequently asked questions
What is the main difference between Onplana and Teamwork.com?
Teamwork is built around agency economics: billable time, retainers, and per-project margin visibility. Onplana is built around the schedule: all four dependency types with lag and a calculated critical path on every plan, including Free. Teamwork's scheduling is lighter; Onplana's billing and client-facing tooling is lighter than Teamwork's purpose-built version.
Does Teamwork.com calculate critical path?
Teamwork's own support documentation describes two dependency types, finish-to-start and finish-finish, with no mention of critical path calculation or highlighting. Onplana calculates critical path from a full dependency graph (FS, SS, FF, SF with lag) on every plan, including Free.
How does Teamwork.com pricing compare to Onplana?
Teamwork runs Free (5 users, 5 projects), Basics at $9.99/user/month, Accelerate at $24.99/user/month, and Optimize and Enterprise at custom, sales-negotiated pricing. Onplana runs Free, Starter ($7), Professional ($12), Business ($20), and Enterprise ($29), all published, with 20% off on annual billing. See teamwork.com/pricing and onplana.com/pricing for current rates.
Which tool is better for agency billing and profitability?
Teamwork, without much competition. Its Accelerate and Optimize tiers add time budgets, retainer management, client invoicing from logged time, and an AI Forecaster for margin prediction, all purpose-built for professional services delivery. Onplana has rate cards, timesheets, and multi-currency budgets, but no dedicated retainer or invoicing workflow.
Can clients see project status directly in either tool?
Teamwork's client-facing features center on centralized client comms and approvals inside the product. Onplana's client-facing options are free guest seats (2 and up from Starter tier) and public share links on cross-project reports that need no login, which cover visibility without a dedicated client billing portal.
Does Onplana or Teamwork have a self-hosted option?
Onplana does, at the Enterprise+ tier: AWS, Azure, GCP, or Docker/Kubernetes with full feature parity to the SaaS version. Teamwork is cloud-only; there is no on-premise or self-hosted edition on its public roadmap.
Ready to make the switch?
Start your free Onplana account and import your existing projects in minutes.