What time tracking software for an architecture firm? 2026 Comparison

The 8 criteria that actually matter for an architecture firm

When searching for time tracking software for an architecture firm, the first mistake is comparing tools on generic criteria: number of integrations, interface design, availability of a mobile app. These criteria matter, of course, but they miss the point.

An architecture firm is not a tech startup, a communications agency, or a management consulting firm. Its operations are built on standardized phases (MOP law in France), fees that are often fixed-price and negotiated upfront, simultaneous multi-project management, and reporting obligations to the project owner. All of this shapes very specific time tracking needs.

Here are the 8 criteria we selected for this comparison, after discussions with firm directors and project managers in construction project management:

1. Structure by MOP phases / milestones: does the tool allow you to break a project down into phases (schematic design, preliminary design, detailed design, construction documents, execution, site supervision, completion) with an hours budget per phase? This is the most discriminating criterion for the sector.

2. Multi-project management: a firm handles an average of 5 to 15 simultaneous projects per team member. The tool must allow fluid switching between projects and a consolidated view.

3. Entry granularity: minute-level tracking creates anxiety-inducing micro-management. Hourly tracking lacks precision. 15-minute increments are the sector consensus.

4. PDF export for the project owner: the ability to produce a structured report of hours consumed by phase, exportable as a PDF, to justify fees or negotiate a change order.

5. Roles and permissions: distinguishing rights between the director, project managers, and team members. A junior architect shouldn't see the firm's margins.

6. Simplicity of daily entry: if entry takes more than 30 seconds per day, the team will abandon it within a month. This is the number one adoption criterion.

7. Dashboard and reporting: profitability dashboard by project, by phase, by team member. Budget overrun alerts.

8. Pricing: value for money suited to architecture firm sizes (usually 2 to 15 people, rarely 50).

Key takeaway: A generalist tool will score well on criteria 2, 6, and 8, but will almost always fail on criteria 1, 4, and 7. It's precisely on these three points that the difference is made for an architecture firm.

In the following sections, we review five categories of tools, evaluating them on each of these criteria with a score from 1 to 5. If you're currently using an Excel spreadsheet and wondering why you should consider a dedicated tool, our article on the limits of Excel for time tracking in architecture firms sets the context well.

Toggl Track: the generalist leader

Toggl Track is probably the most well-known time tracking software in the world. Launched in 2006, it established itself through a clean interface, one-click timer, and an impressive ecosystem of integrations (over 100 connected apps). Its free tier for small teams makes it a natural entry point for many firms.

What works well

• Intuitive interface: onboarding is immediate. You start a timer, stop it, done. The learning curve is virtually nonexistent.
• Integrations: native connections with Asana, Trello, Jira, Google Calendar, Slack, and dozens of other tools.
• Generous free tier: up to 5 users on the free plan, which covers the needs of a solo architect or a small duo.
• Reporting: reports are clear, exportable, and filterable by project, client, or tag.
• Mobile app: available on iOS and Android, functional even offline.

What's missing for an architecture firm

• No concept of MOP phases: Toggl works with projects and tags, but there's no hierarchical structure of Client > Project > Phase > Milestone. You can simulate phases with tags, but it quickly becomes unmanageable beyond 3 projects.
• No hours budget per milestone: you can set a global budget on a project, but not per phase. It's impossible to know if the detailed design phase has consumed 80% of its budget while the overall project is at 50%.
• No structured PDF export for the project owner: exports are oriented toward internal management, not client communication. Producing a fee tracking report by phase requires manual rework.
• Timer-based granularity: Toggl is built around the timer paradigm (start/stop), which generates entries down to the minute. For architects who work in blocks, this approach isn't natural.

Scores by criterion

Harvest: the veteran of hourly billing

Harvest has been around since 2006 and built its reputation on a specific niche: time tracking tied to invoicing. It's the go-to tool for design agencies, consulting firms, and freelancers who bill by the hour. It natively integrates expense management and invoice generation.

What works well

• Integrated invoicing: going from tracked time to invoice takes just a few clicks. This is Harvest's historical strength and it remains relevant.
• Expense tracking: ability to attach expense reports to a project, which is useful for site visit travel.
• Budget reporting: per-project reports clearly show budget consumption in hours and currency.
• Stability: this is a mature, reliable product that doesn't change every three months.

What's missing for an architecture firm

• Dated interface: the user experience hasn't fundamentally evolved in years. Entry remains a classic weekly grid, functional but not engaging for reluctant team members.
• No phase structure: like Toggl, Harvest operates on a Project > Task model, with no concept of MOP phases or milestones. You can create a "Detailed Design Phase" task, but there's no progression logic or per-phase budgets.
• High price for small teams: at $10.80 per user per month (Pro plan), costs add up fast for an 8-person firm, especially when sector-specific features are missing.
• Invoicing-oriented exports: exports are designed to generate invoices, not to produce a structured fee tracking report by phase for the project owner.

Scores by criterion

Clockify: the budget-friendly choice

Clockify positioned itself as the free alternative to Toggl and Harvest. Its main selling point: unlimited users on the free plan. For a firm that wants to test time tracking without a financial commitment, it's an attractive entry point.

What works well

• Free for basic use: time tracking, projects, tags, basic reports, all without user limits. It's unbeatable for getting started.
• Decent feature set: timer, manual entry, per-project reports, CSV export. The essentials are there.
• Multiplatform: web, desktop (Windows, Mac, Linux), mobile (iOS, Android), browser extensions.

What's missing for an architecture firm

• Limited reporting on the free plan: advanced reports (budgets, projections, comparisons) are reserved for paid plans. On the free tier, you get hour totals, not a profitability analysis.
• No architecture-specific features: same finding as Toggl and Harvest. No phases, no milestones, no project-owner exports. The tool is generic by design.
• Lagging ergonomics: the interface is functional but dense. Entry isn't as smooth as Toggl's, which weighs on team adoption.
• Limited free support: in case of problems, support is reserved for paid plans. For a firm discovering time tracking, guidance matters.

Key takeaway: Clockify is an excellent tool for testing time tracking at zero cost. But if your goal is to manage profitability by MOP phase, you'll quickly hit the tool's limits, even on paid plans.

Scores by criterion

Monday / Asana: project management tools repurposed

Monday.com and Asana aren't time tracking tools per se. They're project management platforms that added time tracking features to round out their offering. Many firms already use them to organize their projects and naturally wonder if the built-in time tracking module is sufficient.

What works well

• Complete project management: planning, assignment, progress tracking, task dependencies. If you're looking for an overall management tool, this is their playground.
• Team collaboration: comments, shared files, notifications, kanban boards. The tool becomes the central communication hub for the project.
• Deep customization: you can create custom views, automations, and formulas. In theory, you can model any workflow.
• Integrations: a very rich app ecosystem (cloud storage, CRM, accounting, etc.).

What's missing for an architecture firm

• Time tracking is secondary: time tracking is a bolt-on module, not the core product. The daily entry experience is significantly less smooth than on a dedicated tool. On Monday, you have to navigate into a board, find the right row, click on the time column, enter the value. That's 3 to 5 clicks too many.
• Complex configuration: to get a Client > Project > Phase structure with budgets, you need to set up boards, groups, columns, and formulas. It's doable, but requires several hours of configuration and ongoing maintenance.
• Prohibitive pricing for time tracking alone: Monday Pro starts at $19 per user/month, Asana Business at $24.99. For an 8-person firm that primarily wants to track hours, it's a disproportionate investment.
• No fee-oriented reporting: dashboards are powerful but generic. Producing a fee tracking report by MOP phase requires advanced configuration work.

Scores by criterion

Mataee: the tool built for service companies

Mataee is a time tracking SaaS designed specifically for service companies: architecture firms, engineering consultancies, construction management firms. Unlike the generalist tools presented above, the phase and milestone structure is native, not simulated.

What works well

• Native Client > Project > Phase > Milestone structure: this is the core of the product. You create a project, define its phases (schematic design, preliminary design, detailed design, construction documents, execution, site supervision, completion, or any other structure), and assign an hours budget to each phase. Consumption tracking is automatic.
• 15-minute pill-based entry: instead of a timer or grid, entry is done by clicking on 15-minute "pills" pre-positioned on the day. One click = 15 minutes assigned to a project and phase. It's visually clear and very fast (under 30 seconds per day).
• Budget and alerts per milestone: each phase has a defined hours budget. A dashboard shows real-time consumption with alert thresholds (green/amber/red). You can immediately see if a phase is going over budget.
• Structured PDF export: an export per project, organized by phase, showing hours consumed, remaining budget, and team members involved. Ready to be sent to the project owner or attached to a change order request.
• Purposeful simplicity: the tool does one thing and does it well. No project management, no CRM, no invoicing. Just time tracking, structured for service companies.
• Accessible pricing: pricing positioned for small and medium-sized firms, with a free 5-day trial.

What's missing (let's be honest)

• Young product: Mataee is a recent product. Its integration ecosystem is still limited compared to Toggl or Harvest. There's no native connection (yet) with accounting software, Google/Outlook calendars, or project management platforms.
• No native mobile app: entry is done through the web browser (responsive, so usable on mobile), but there's no dedicated iOS/Android app. For an architect on site, this is a limitation.
• Smaller ecosystem: less community documentation, fewer video tutorials, fewer public user reviews than tools that have been around for 15 years. That's the price of being new.
• Advanced features in progress: some features (integrated invoicing, public API, automations) are on the roadmap but not yet available.

Key takeaway: Mataee isn't trying to replace Monday or Asana for project management. Its bet is to do better than anyone else on a specific scope: time tracking structured by phases and milestones, for service companies. If that's exactly your need, it's the most suitable tool. If you're looking for a Swiss army knife, look elsewhere.

Scores by criterion

Comparison table: all 5 tools against the 8 criteria

Here is the complete summary of scores assigned to each tool on our 8 architecture and construction management-specific criteria. Each score is out of 5.

A few observations on this table:

• The generalist tools are tightly clustered (19 to 25 points). They excel on universal criteria (simplicity, multi-project, pricing) but all fall short on sector-specific criteria (MOP phases, project-owner exports, 15-minute granularity).
• Monday/Asana are penalized by pricing and entry complexity. They're powerful tools, but time tracking isn't their core purpose, and it shows in the daily experience.
• Mataee leads on the sector-specific criteria (phases, export, granularity) while remaining competitive on general criteria. Its relative weakness lies in ecosystem and product maturity, which aren't captured by this grid but which we detailed above.

Key takeaway: A high total doesn't mean the tool is "better" in absolute terms. It means it better meets the specific criteria of an architecture firm. A freelance developer who bills by the hour would be better served by Toggl or Harvest.

Verdict by profile: which tool to choose based on your situation?

There's no universal answer. The best tool depends on your size, your organization, and your maturity in time tracking. Here are our recommendations by profile.

Solo or duo architect

Our recommendation: Toggl Track (free) or Clockify (free)

If you're working solo or as a pair, you probably manage 2 to 5 simultaneous projects, with relatively clear phases in your head. Your primary need is to know how much time you spend on each project to validate your profitability. Toggl does this very well, for free, with exemplary ergonomics. Clockify is an alternative if you prefer manual entry over the timer.

At this stage, having MOP phase structure in the tool isn't critical: you manage it mentally or with a supplementary spreadsheet.

Small firm (2 to 5 people)

Our recommendation: Mataee or Toggl Track (paid)

This is the tipping point. Starting at 3 team members, compiling time in Excel becomes a weekly chore. You need everyone to log their hours independently, and you want to see consumption by project without manual rework.

If your projects are structured by phases (residential, commercial, public contracts), Mataee delivers an immediate benefit thanks to the native Client > Project > Phase structure. If your projects are more informal (renovation, interior design), paid Toggl may suffice.

Medium firm (6 to 15 people)

Our recommendation: Mataee

At this size, time tracking is no longer a "nice to have" but a strategic management tool. You manage 10 to 30 simultaneous projects, multiple team members per project, and you need to produce regular reports -- whether for the project owner, the partners, or your own decision-making.

The criteria that become decisive: per-phase budgets with overrun alerts, structured PDF exports, differentiated roles (the director sees profitability, the project manager sees their scope, team members log their hours). This is exactly the ground Mataee was built to excel on.

The current limitation (no native mobile app) can be offset by the responsive web version accessible from a phone's browser.

Engineering consultancy (BET)

Our recommendation: Mataee

Engineering consultancies share the same needs as architecture firms when it comes to phases and milestones, with an added complexity: management by technical lots (structural, HVAC, civil works). Mataee's hierarchical structure (Client > Project > Phase) naturally adapts to this organization, where each lot can be modeled as a project or phase depending on the desired granularity.

The accessible pricing is an important factor for engineering consultancies, which often operate with tighter margins than architecture firms.

Questions to ask before choosing

Before subscribing to a tool (or switching from one to another), ask yourself these questions. They'll help you avoid choosing a tool that doesn't match your reality.

1. What is my actual problem today? Am I missing data (I don't know how many hours are spent on my projects)? Do I have data but it's unstructured (I know things are "going over" but I can't quantify it by phase)? Or does my team simply not log their hours? The answer points to very different tools.

2. How many simultaneous projects does my firm manage? Below 5, almost any tool will work. Above 10, phase structures and overrun alerts become essential.

3. Do I need to produce reports for the project owner or my partners? If yes, a structured PDF export by phase isn't a luxury -- it's an operational necessity. Verify that the tool allows this export without manual rework.

4. How mature is my team when it comes to time logging? If your team has never logged their hours, tool simplicity is the number one criterion. A simple tool adopted by everyone is better than a comprehensive tool used by no one.

5. What budget am I willing to invest? Calculate the total annual cost (number of users x monthly price x 12). Compare it to the cost of a single project that goes over budget due to lack of tracking. Generally, one avoided overrun pays for several years of subscription.

6. Do I need a time tracking tool or a project management tool? If you already have a project management tool (Monday, Asana, Notion), you don't need a second project management tool with time tracking as a bonus. You need a specialized time tracking tool that does well what your current tool does poorly.

7. Can I try for free before committing? This is the most pragmatic question. Most tools offer a free trial of 7 to 30 days. Use it with your team, on your real projects, for at least two weeks. That's the only way to know if the tool delivers on its promises in daily use.

Key takeaway: The best time tracking software for your architecture firm is the one your team will actually use, every day, without needing to be reminded. Functional sophistication counts for nothing without adoption.

Choosing time tracking software is a foundational investment for an architecture firm. Take the time to test, involve your team in the decision, and prioritize the tool that fits your way of working rather than the one with the most features on paper.