Introducing G2.ai, the future of software buying.Try now
Compare Attendance on Demand and Timely 
Featured Products
Sponsored
You’re seeing this ad based on the product’s relevance to this page. Sponsored content does not receive preferential treatment in any of G2’s ratings.
Monitask
Visit Website
Sponsored
You’re seeing this ad based on the product’s relevance to this page. Sponsored content does not receive preferential treatment in any of G2’s ratings.
Controlio
Visit Website
Sponsored
You’re seeing this ad based on the product’s relevance to this page. Sponsored content does not receive preferential treatment in any of G2’s ratings.
Buddy Punch
Visit Website
At a Glance
Market Segments
Mid-Market (43.8% of reviews)
Small-Business (76.5% of reviews)
Entry-Level Pricing
No pricing available
$9.00 1 User Per Month
Attendance on Demand
Star Rating
(16)4.3 out of 5
Market Segments
Mid-Market (43.8% of reviews)
Pros & Cons
Not enough data
Entry-Level Pricing
No pricing available
Learn more about Attendance on DemandTimely
Star Rating
(475)4.8 out of 5
Market Segments
Small-Business (76.5% of reviews)
Pros & Cons
Entry-Level Pricing
$9.00 1 User Per Month
Free Trial is available
Browse all 3 pricing plansSummary
AI Generated Summary
AI-generated. Powered by real user reviews.
- G2 reviewers report that Timely excels in user satisfaction, boasting a significantly higher overall score compared to Attendance on Demand. Users appreciate its clean and user-friendly interface, which simplifies time tracking and enhances productivity.
- According to verified reviews, Timely's automatic time tracking feature is a standout, allowing users to minimize manual entries and ensure accurate tracking of work activities. This feature is particularly praised by consultants who find it easy to track time efficiently.
- Users say that Attendance on Demand is straightforward for both administrators and employees, making it easy to navigate for tasks like time card corrections and time-off requests. This ease of use is highlighted as a major benefit for organizations looking for a simple solution.
- Reviewers mention that Timely's implementation process is quick and intuitive, with many users noting the helpful onboarding features that facilitate a smooth transition. This contrasts with Attendance on Demand, which has received mixed feedback regarding its setup process.
- G2 reviewers highlight that while Timely offers robust features for time tracking and project management, Attendance on Demand shines in its integration capabilities with various payroll software, making payroll processes seamless for users.
- Users report that both products provide effective time tracking, but Timely's additional features, such as the planning time and stopwatch functionalities, give it an edge in managing tasks and improving workflow efficiency compared to Attendance on Demand.
Pricing
Entry-Level Pricing
Attendance on Demand
No pricing availableTimely
Starter
$9.00
1 User Per Month
For Solo/Micro business
Finish timesheets in 10 min, bill for 20% more hours.
- Max 5 users
- 20 Active projects
- Unlimited Teams
Free Trial
Attendance on Demand
No trial information availableTimely
Free Trial is available
Ratings
Meets Requirements
9.2
14
9.3
389
Ease of Use
9.3
14
9.5
391
Ease of Setup
8.1
6
9.2
202
Ease of Admin
8.1
6
9.4
148
Quality of Support
9.2
14
9.5
306
Has the product been a good partner in doing business?
8.6
6
9.6
144
Product Direction (% positive)
8.3
14
9.6
391
Features by Category
Automation
Not enough data
8.3
34
Logistics
Not enough data
8.7
36
Not enough data
8.9
36
Not enough data
8.1
35
Management
Not enough data
8.2
37
Not enough data
8.2
36
Not enough data
7.5
32
Not enough data
9.2
35
Not enough data
9.1
35
Not enough data
8.4
33
Not enough data
8.0
31
Monitoring
Not enough data
8.0
35
Not enough data
8.2
34
Not enough data
8.4
34
Cost Tracking
Not enough data
8.8
42
Not enough data
8.8
40
Not enough data
8.5
38
Time Tracking
9.4
12
9.5
331
9.4
12
9.4
343
9.4
9
9.2
280
Client Invoicing
8.6
6
8.1
193
8.9
6
7.4
165
9.0
5
8.6
208
Mobile Time Tracking
9.4
12
9.2
309
Administration
9.3
10
8.5
225
9.3
10
8.9
241
9.3
10
8.3
233
9.1
11
8.4
180
8.8
13
8.9
240
Platform
9.0
10
9.0
291
8.7
9
8.3
225
8.5
8
8.1
185
9.8
10
9.4
305
9.0
8
8.5
228
8.3
8
Feature Not Available
Categories
Categories
Shared Categories
Attendance on Demand and Timely are categorized as Time Tracking
Unique Categories
Attendance on Demand has no unique categories
Timely is categorized as Project Cost Management and Time & Attendance
Reviews
Reviewers' Company Size
Attendance on Demand
Small-Business(50 or fewer emp.)
Mid-Market(51-1000 emp.)
Enterprise(> 1000 emp.)
Timely
Small-Business(50 or fewer emp.)
Mid-Market(51-1000 emp.)
Enterprise(> 1000 emp.)
Small-Business
(50 or fewer emp.)
Mid-Market
(51-1000 emp.)
Enterprise
(> 1000 emp.)
Reviewers' Industry
Hospital & Health Care
25.0%
Human Resources
12.5%
Security and Investigations
6.3%
Public Safety
6.3%
Primary/Secondary Education
6.3%
Other
43.8%
Marketing and Advertising
13.4%
Computer Software
10.8%
Design
9.5%
Information Technology and Services
8.0%
Consulting
5.4%
Other
53.0%
Discussions
Attendance on Demand has no discussions with answers
Is there a way to format reports? i.e modify the printed output?
2 Comments
M
Hey!
We currently don't have a way of formatting the PDF output from Timely. Have you tried using the shareable report feature? That way you can send a...Read more
How can I make tags more custom and easy to use for multiple projects?
2 Comments
M
Hi Daniel!
Sorry for the late reply – but here goes!
What exactly do you mean by more custom? You can re-use a list of tags for multiple projects, so...Read more
Quickbooks integration
1 Comment
M
Hey!
Yes, absolutely. We're planning to add integrations with the most used accounting and billing systems. Quickbooks is high up on our list.
We'll...Read more
Hunting for software insights?
With over 3 million reviews, we can provide the specific details that help you make an informed software buying decision for your business. Finding the right product is important, let us help.
