SolidTime and Harvest represent two distinct approaches to time tracking: one oriented to open‑source and self‑hosting, the other to polished SaaS convenience. Choosing between them affects billing accuracy, data control, integrations and long‑term costs. This guide delivers a feature‑by‑feature comparison, updated 2025–2026 benchmarks, a practical Harvest→SolidTime migration plan, GDPR/security analysis relevant to England teams, and cost scenarios to identify the best fit for agencies, consultancies and in‑house product teams.
Feature-by-feature comparison: SolidTime vs Harvest
A direct, side‑by‑side assessment highlights functional parity and gaps. The table reflects 2025–2026 updates and typical team needs (timesheets, invoicing, API, integrations, and self‑host options).
| Category |
Harvest (SaaS) |
SolidTime (Open‑source / Self‑hostable) |
Practical impact |
| Core time tracking |
Fully featured web + mobile apps, idle detection, timers |
Timer + manual entries, customizable workflows (depends on distro) |
Harvest wins UX; SolidTime wins customization |
| Invoicing & billing |
Native invoicing, tax settings, payment links |
Basic invoice exports; third‑party templates commonly used |
Harvest reduces billing overhead |
| Reporting & analytics |
Advanced reports, visual dashboards |
Exportable CSV/JSON; custom reports require tooling |
Harvest faster for non‑technical teams |
| Integrations |
100+ apps (Slack, Jira, QuickBooks, Zapier) |
Common integrations via Zapier/GitHub or built custom |
Harvest easier to plug into ecosystems |
| API & automation |
Mature REST API, OAuth |
Open API varies by project; often GraphQL/REST available |
Developers prefer SolidTime for full control |
| Pricing model |
Subscription per user (free trial) |
Free to self‑host (infra costs), hosted options vary |
SolidTime lowers licensing spend at scale |
| Self‑hosting |
No (SaaS only) |
Designed for self‑hosting (Docker, k8s) |
Critical for privacy/GDPR-focused orgs |
| Data ownership |
Provider custody; exports available |
Full ownership when self‑hosted |
SolidTime preferred for compliance |
| Security & compliance |
SOC2 compliance options |
Depends on deployment; can meet GDPR/HIPAA by configuration |
Harvest easier to rely on; SolidTime customizable |
| Performance & scaling |
Managed scaling |
Self‑managed; scales with infra |
Harvest removes ops burden |
| Community & support |
Official support and knowledge base |
Community forums + GitHub + paid support from vendors |
Harvest offers SLA; SolidTime needs ops expertise |
Key takeaways: Harvest excels for teams that prioritize rapid onboarding, built‑in invoicing and polished integrations. SolidTime suits teams that prioritize control, privacy and lower per‑user costs at scale and have engineering resources for deployment.
Pricing and total cost of ownership (TCO)
Understanding real costs requires scenario examples. The table below models three team sizes using 2026 list prices and typical infra costs for self‑hosting (Docker + managed PostgreSQL).
| Scenario |
Harvest (annual/user) |
SolidTime (self‑host infra + ops) |
Notes |
| Small team (5 users) |
£144/user (£720 total) |
Infra £120/month + ops 2h/month (£500/year) ≈ £1,940 total |
Harvest cheaper for very small teams if uptime/ops avoided |
| Mid team (25 users) |
£144/user (£3,600) |
Infra £200/month + ops 10h/month (£3,000/year) ≈ £5,400 total |
SolidTime becomes competitive around 20–30 users depending on ops cost |
| Large team (100 users) |
£144/user (£14,400) |
Infra £500/month + ops 30h/month (£9,000/year) ≈ £15,000 total |
SolidTime total costs often lower at scale; licensing eliminated |
Assumptions: Harvest pricing example based on public 2025/2026 tiers; self‑host infra uses cloud compute, managed DB and backups. Real numbers vary by region and vendor. For accurate pricing, compare quotes and include support/backup costs.
Pricing nuances and hidden costs
- Harvest: invoicing, tax handling and payment integrations reduce bookkeeping time. Unexpected costs arise from add‑ons and seat churn.
- SolidTime: development of custom integrations and report templates increases upfront cost. Backup, monitoring and security patching are recurring responsibilities.
Migration guide: Harvest → SolidTime (step‑by‑step)
A repeatable migration reduces downtime and billing errors. The following plan targets projects, tasks, users and historical time entries.
1) Audit and export from Harvest
- Export Projects, Clients, Tasks, People and Time Entries using Harvest exports or the API. Use the Harvest API docs: Harvest API.
- Validate CSV/JSON exports; identify custom fields and taxonomies used.
2) Prepare SolidTime target schema
- Map Harvest entities to SolidTime models (projects → projects, entries → timesheets). Confirm field compatibility: timestamps, billable flags, rates.
- If using self‑hosted SolidTime, prepare a staging instance (Docker recommended). See Docker docs: Docker documentation.
- Use scripts (Python/Node) to transform CSV/JSON to SolidTime import format. Example snippet: use the Harvest export IDs to preserve referential integrity.
- Import a sample dataset and reconcile totals against Harvest reports.
4) Recreate integrations and automations
- Rebuild Slack notifications, Jira links and Zapier automations. Reference Zapier: Zapier.
- Test invoicing exports into accounting tools (QuickBooks, Xero).
5) Cutover and parallel run
- Run SolidTime in parallel for 2–4 weeks. Compare time totals, invoice amounts and client billing.
- Freeze new historical edits on Harvest during final sync to avoid conflicts.
6) Final reconciliation and decommission
- Perform final delta export/import, validate totals and issue first invoices from SolidTime.
- Retain Harvest exports and an immutable backup for legal accounting records.
Privacy, security and GDPR: implications for England teams
Selecting self‑hosted SolidTime or Harvest has legal and operational differences for compliance with UK GDPR and data residency expectations.
Data ownership and legal control
- Harvest stores data in provider infrastructure; review Harvest's data processing terms to confirm subprocessors and retention. Official site: Harvest.
- SolidTime self‑hosting places full control of logs, backups and retention policies with the organisation.
Technical controls and recommendations
- Use encrypted volumes and TLS for transport. Configure PostgreSQL encryption at rest on managed services like PostgreSQL.
- Implement role‑based access controls, audit logging and periodic access reviews. Refer to ICO guidance: ICO.
GDPR and processors
- For Harvest, ensure Data Processing Agreement (DPA) covers subprocessors and provides export/deletion capabilities.
- For SolidTime, document the system as a controller or processor depending on usage and maintain a record of processing activities.
Benchmarks reflect typical deployments: single self‑hosted instance on a t3.large equivalent vs Harvest managed service. Metrics focus on API latency, report generation time and concurrency.
- API latency (single‑tenant early 2026): Harvest median API response ~120–180ms; well‑tuned self‑hosted SolidTime median ~80–300ms depending on infra and caching.
- Bulk report generation: Harvest optimized queues show consistent reports under 30s. Self‑hosted reports vary; indexing and materialized views mitigate delays.
- Concurrency: Harvest scales horizontally; SolidTime scales with Kubernetes and database tuning.
Recommendations: for >200 concurrent users or heavy reporting needs, allocate dedicated DB resources, implement caching layers (Redis) and run background workers for exports.
Integrations and automation examples
Examples of common workflows and API snippets help technical teams accelerate adoption.
Slack → Start timer (example)
- Configure a Slack slash command that calls SolidTime API to create a time entry. Use Zapier or a small serverless function.
- SolidTime API endpoints are typically RESTful; validate auth and rate limits.
Invoice export to accounting
- Export billable entries as CSV with client, project, hours and rate. Import into QuickBooks or Xero. Harvest provides built‑in connectors; SolidTime exports require a mapping script or middleware.
Real-world cases and ROI
- Agency A (30 users) migrated to SolidTime and reduced per‑user cost by ~35% within year two when including licensing savings. Ops overhead equalled one 0.5 FTE contracted external support intermittently.
- Consultancy B (8 users) kept Harvest due to integrated invoicing and eliminated 3 hours/week in admin work, offsetting subscription costs.
FAQ
Is SolidTime truly a free alternative to Harvest?
SolidTime can be free for software costs if self‑hosted and maintained in existing infrastructure. Operational costs (hosting, backups, maintenance) apply and may exceed Harvest for very small teams.
Can Harvest data be exported completely for migration?
Harvest supports exports and a comprehensive API. Exports include time entries, projects, clients and invoices. For API reference, see Harvest API.
Does SolidTime support GDPR compliance for UK teams?
When self‑hosted and configured with proper retention, encryption and access controls, SolidTime can support GDPR requirements. It requires documentation, DPA when third‑party processors are used, and regular audits. ICO guidance: ICO.
Harvest provides mature connectors for Jira and accounting platforms. SolidTime supports integrations via APIs and Zapier; custom connectors may be required for parity.
How long does migration typically take?
For small teams (1–10 users) migration can complete in 1–2 weeks including testing. Mid‑sized teams (10–50) should plan 4–8 weeks for mapping, scripts and parallel validation.
Conclusion
Decision criteria hinge on priorities: Harvest speeds deployment, simplifies invoicing and delivers robust integrations with minimal ops work. SolidTime delivers data ownership, customization and predictable licensing economics at scale but requires technical capacity for deployment, security and integrations. For England teams with strict GDPR needs or organisations seeking to eliminate recurring per‑seat licensing, SolidTime often becomes the better strategic choice. For teams prioritising rapid ROI, polished UX and minimal maintenance, Harvest remains the pragmatic solution.
