8 Best Teamwork.com Alternatives

Teamwork.com is built for agencies, and its strength is the commercial side — rates, budgets, retainers and invoicing from tracked time. Agencies leaving it usually fall into one of three groups.

Quick answer: If you use the invoicing, very few alternatives replace it and you should think hard. If you bought it for the agency positioning but bill through a separate finance system anyway, you are paying for a module you do not use, and the list below is wider than you think.

Why Agencies Look Elsewhere

Three reasons, and the first is the most common by a distance.

Paying for billing you do not use

Many agencies invoice through Xero, QuickBooks or a finance team, and Teamwork.com's billing features sit idle.

If that is you, the main thing distinguishing Teamwork.com from cheaper tools is not something you are using. That is a straightforward cost problem.

Delivery depth is only moderate

Boards, Gantt and dependencies are present and not especially deep. Teams practising strict Kanban or wanting sophisticated flow control find it thin.

The product's centre of gravity is commercial rather than delivery, and it shows.

Resourcing is not its strength

Workload visibility exists; allocation and utilisation management across many concurrent projects is not at the level of tools built for it.

Agencies whose real problem is overcommitted people frequently discover they bought for billing and needed resourcing.

The 8 Alternatives Compared

Tool Best for Invoicing Resourcing Client access Taskzin Delivery and client visibility No Basic Free unlimited guests Wrike

Wrike — resourcing and proofing

proofing No Strong Varies by plan ClickUp Breadth at low cost No Moderate Varies by plan Monday.com Visual, easy adoption No Available Varies by plan Asana Clarity across mixed teams No Basic Guests, tiered

Basecamp — conversation-led retainers

Conversation-led retainers No No Included

Scoro Full agency back office Yes Available Available Harvest + project tool Unbundled time and billing Yes (Harvest) Depends Depends

Verify current pricing and client-user terms before deciding.

The Alternatives in Detail

What each covers, and what it does not.

Taskzin — delivery and client access, simpler pricing

Six views over one dataset, dependencies with critical path, board WIP limits, time tracking with billable rates on Business, and dashboards. Flat per member with no seat tiers, and unlimited free guests with view and comment access.

The trade: no invoicing, so you keep your finance tool. Suits agencies whose commercial side is already handled elsewhere and who want stronger delivery visibility without per-client costs.

Wrike — resourcing and proofing The strongest option if your problem is allocating people, or if creative proofing is central to your workflow.

The trade: no invoicing, heavier implementation, and higher cost.

ClickUp — breadth at low cost

Time tracking, docs, dashboards and dependencies at aggressive pricing.

The trade: no invoicing, and it needs configuration ownership to avoid sprawl.

Monday.com — visual and easy to adopt

Best for agencies where adoption across a mixed team is the real risk.

The trade: no invoicing, moderate delivery depth, and seat structure to check.

Asana — clarity across mixed teams

Clean, widely understood, strong portfolios for viewing many client projects at once.

The trade: no invoicing, basic resourcing, and useful features on higher tiers.

Basecamp — conversation-led retainers Flat fee, unlimited users, message boards that handle client discussion better than task comments.

The trade: no dependencies, no time tracking, minimal reporting. Only right if your work is genuinely conversational.

Scoro — if you want the full agency back office

Quotes, projects, time, billing and reporting in one system — arguably more complete than Teamwork.com commercially.

The trade: heavier and more expensive, and it is a business-management system rather than a delivery tool.

Harvest plus a project tool — the unbundled option

Time tracking and invoicing in Harvest, delivery in whichever project tool fits best.

The trade: two subscriptions and an integration. Frequently cheaper and better than one tool doing both adequately.

Choosing by What You Actually Need

Start from which capability you genuinely use today.

If you need invoicing in the tool

Scoro is the closest full replacement. Otherwise, unbundle — Harvest or similar for time and billing, plus a delivery tool.

Do not assume you need it in one system. Most agencies invoice monthly and the integration handles it fine.

If you need resourcing

Wrike, clearly. Nothing else on this list is close for allocating people across many concurrent projects.

Accept that you lose the billing side, which is the trade you are making.

If you only need delivery and client visibility

The widest field, and where cost differences are largest. Taskzin, Asana, ClickUp or Monday.com depending on whether you prioritise dependencies, adoption, breadth or visual clarity.

Compare guest terms carefully — for a client-facing agency this usually matters more than seat price.

The Cost Comparison Agencies Get Wrong

Three adjustments produce a number resembling your actual bill.

Count client contacts, not just staff

Model internal team plus contractors plus every client contact who needs access.

Guest and client-user terms vary substantially and change over time. For an agency with forty external contacts, this line frequently exceeds the difference in staff seat cost entirely.

Price the tier with your requirement

Name the capability that determines your plan — time tracking, resourcing, proofing, guest access — and compare at those tiers.

Entry-level comparisons between plans that lack your requirement produce numbers unrelated to what you will pay.

Add back what you would still pay for

If a tool means keeping Harvest, add Harvest. If it means keeping a proofing tool, add that.

Consolidation savings only count where the old subscription actually gets cancelled. Write down which ones genuinely would.