Asana vs Vaiz Time Tracking
Time Tracking Features
Both products support manual entry and live-timer modes, with billable flags and per-task allocation. The tier placement decides whether the feature is included or paywalled at the entry tier.
Native time tracking has three sub-features that matter day to day.
Asana native timer locked to the Advanced plan
Asana ships a native timer on the Advanced tier at $24.99/user/month annual. Starter and Personal users either pair Asana with Toggl or Harvest, or wait to upgrade.
Vaiz time tracking available from the Pro tier
- Pro tier at $5/user/month annual includes the native timer.
- Time entries attach to tasks with billable flags.
- Export to CSV for downstream invoicing systems.
Manual entry vs live-timer support compared
Both products support live-timer mode (start, pause, stop) and manual entry of past time. Vaiz adds a built-in focus timer that pairs Pomodoro-style sessions with logged time on a task. Asana keeps the timer transactional and pairs with third-party Pomodoro tools.
| Decision point | Asana fit | Vaiz fit |
|---|---|---|
| Time Tracking Features | Best when a team already uses Asana projects, portfolios, goals, and established approval paths. | Best when the team wants tasks, docs, DataGrid tables, chat, and automation in one workspace. |
| Cost profile | Public paid pricing starts at $10.99 per user per month on annual billing for Starter. | Public paid pricing starts at $5 per user per month on annual billing for Pro. |
| Operational risk | Lower vendor adoption risk, higher stack-sprawl risk when docs, chat, and timers live elsewhere. | Lower tool-sprawl risk, higher change-management risk for teams leaving a mature Asana setup. |
Vaiz wins on tier placement — the same feature ships at one fifth the per-seat cost.
Employee Productivity Monitoring
Time-on-task data is useful for capacity planning and billing; it becomes a problem when it turns into surveillance. Both products navigate the line with manager approval and privacy controls.
Time tracking has a culture dimension that the feature list can\'t express.
Time-on-task without surveillance creep
The healthy use is capacity planning and billing; the unhealthy use is per-keystroke monitoring. Both products land on the healthy side — time logs are visible to the assignee and their manager, with no idle-time detection or screenshot capture.
Manager approval flows for timesheets
- Asana supports timesheet approval workflows on Advanced and above.
- Vaiz supports the same through When-then automation chains.
- Both surface unapproved time in manager dashboards.
Privacy controls for individual contributors
Individual time entries are visible to the entry owner and direct manager by default. Both products let admins adjust visibility per workspace policy.
Both platforms keep time tracking on the planning-and-billing side rather than the surveillance side.
Reporting and Analytics
Billable-versus-non-billable splits, per-client rollups, and invoice-ready exports are the agency-facing time-tracking surface. Both products handle them.
Time reporting is mostly the same questions across teams.
Billable vs non-billable hour splits
Both products support billable flags at the entry level — task-level on Asana, project-level on Vaiz. Reports aggregate by flag for invoicing splits.
Per-client and per-project rollups
- Rollups by client require client-tagging via custom fields (Asana) or DataGrid columns (Vaiz).
- Both export to CSV with the standard columns invoicing systems expect.
- Native Salesforce and HubSpot integration on Asana adds direct CRM rollup.
Invoicing-ready CSV exports
Both products produce CSV exports with task, project, assignee, hours, billable flag, and date columns. The format is invoice-ready for most billing tools.
On reporting both products are at parity; choose by the CRM integration that matches your existing stack.
Workflow Optimization Benefits
Time data feeds three optimization patterns: estimation accuracy, right-sizing project scopes, and reducing meeting time. All three pay off within one quarter for teams that act on the signal.
Time tracking is most valuable when it changes a decision, not just when it produces a report.
Spotting estimation-accuracy drift
Both products surface estimate-versus-actual time per task. Teams that review the gap monthly improve estimates measurably within a quarter; teams that look at the data only at quarter-end usually don\'t.
Right-sizing future project scopes
- Per-project total time informs the next quote or budget conversation.
- Per-task-type rollups (design review, copy edit, paid media setup) calibrate templates.
- Both products produce these rollups from the standard time data.
Reducing meeting and status-update time
Tracking time spent in status meetings versus shipping work surfaces the meeting cost explicitly. Both products show the breakdown in time reports; the conversation about cutting meetings is the same either way.
Time data only optimizes workflows when teams review it monthly. Both products produce the same data; both work the same way.
Verdict: Built-In, Toggl, Harvest, or Clockify
Three scenarios cover most decisions. Built-in works for most teams; dedicated tools win when billing complexity gets serious.
Native time tracking works for most teams. Dedicated tools win when the billing layer needs more rigor.
Agencies tracking billables across many clients
For agencies billing 10+ clients with complex rate structures, Harvest or Toggl integrate with QuickBooks and Xero directly and handle the invoicing layer better than either Asana or Vaiz can. The PM tool tracks time; the dedicated tool issues the invoice.
Internal teams that need weekly timesheets
- Built-in time tracking on Asana Advanced or Vaiz Pro covers internal timesheet workflows.
- Manager approval flows handle the sign-off step.
- Export to payroll or HR system via CSV or direct integration.
Teams that only want rough estimates
For teams that want approximate time data without strict billing, either built-in option works. The friction of installing and configuring Toggl outweighs the marginal feature gain.
Built-in time tracking works for most teams. Reach for Toggl or Harvest only when the billing layer is the bottleneck.
Frequently asked questions
Is Asana time tracking available on the Starter plan?
No — native time tracking is locked to the Advanced tier (\$24.99/user/month annual) and above. Starter users pair Asana with Toggl or Harvest for time tracking, which adds roughly \$9-11/user/month to the tool stack. Vaiz includes native time tracking from the Pro tier at \$5/user/month annual.
Can Vaiz handle billable hour tracking for client work?
Yes — Vaiz Pro at \$5/user/month annual ships project-level billable flags, manual entry plus live timer, and CSV export with billable-versus-non-billable splits. For agencies billing complex rate structures with direct QuickBooks or Xero integration, dedicated tools like Harvest still handle the invoicing layer better. For straightforward billable tracking, Vaiz built-in is enough.
Do either of these tools replace Toggl or Harvest?
For teams that just want time logged against tasks, both built-in options replace Toggl. For teams that depend on Toggl-specific features — detailed rounding rules, complex client billing exports, time-rounded invoicing — the dedicated tool still wins. Harvest stays ahead on invoice generation specifically.
Can time entries be edited after submission?
Yes on both platforms, with audit trails. Asana logs edits with timestamp and editor identity; Vaiz does the same. Manager approval workflows on both products can lock entries once approved, preventing post-approval edits without an explicit unlock. The audit visibility matters for teams that bill clients from the tracked time.