Locu vs Harvest: Execution First, Invoicing Second

Harvest is the complete freelancer business platform: time tracking, invoicing, expense management, payments, team scheduling, and detailed reporting. It's designed for consultants and agencies running full-fledged service businesses.

But most freelance developers don't need a full business platform—they need better execution.

Locu takes a different approach: nail the execution layer first (focus sessions, task management, engineering integrations), then make invoicing simple. If you're a maker who occasionally needs to bill clients, not a consultant running an agency, Locu is purpose-built for you.

If Harvest is your business back-office, Locu is your execution workspace.

---

Why Full-Service Billing Platforms Feel Heavy

Built for Consultants, Not Makers

Harvest's feature set reveals its target user:

• Team scheduling and capacity planning
• Expense tracking and approval workflows
• Detailed budget forecasting
• Client-facing invoices with payment processing
• Project profitability analysis
• Team utilization reports

This is perfect for: Consulting agencies, creative studios, professional services firms
This is overkill for: Solo developer building features, freelance engineer fixing bugs

Locu's approach: Built specifically for makers. Focus on execution (sessions, tasks, integrations), keep invoicing simple (export timesheets), skip the enterprise features you won't use.

Time Tracking Is Still Manual

Despite being a "complete platform," Harvest's time tracking is still manual start/stop. You still need to remember to start timers, switch between tasks, stop timers, edit retroactively when you forget.

The invoicing is excellent, but it's built on top of the same manual tracking burden as Toggl or Clockify.

Locu's approach: Session-based tracking reduces manual burden. One session start per hour instead of 10-20 timer actions. Better execution (focus structure) leads to better tracking leads to easier invoicing.

No Focus Support

Harvest tracks time and handles billing, but it doesn't help you do better work. No focus sessions, no distraction blocking, no execution structure. You're still vulnerable to scattered work patterns—Harvest just helps you invoice for the scattered hours.

Locu's approach: Focus infrastructure first. Start session = distraction blocking, Slack DND, one task focus, full context visible. Better execution → more billable hours → more to invoice. The execution improvements pay for themselves.

Limited Engineering Integrations

Harvest integrates with Asana, Basecamp, and Trello—project management tools popular with agencies. But where's Jira? Where's Linear? Where's deep Slack integration for engineering workflows?

Locu's approach: Built for engineering workflows. Jira and Linear tasks auto-sync. Slack status updates during focus. GitHub context pulling. Your execution layer connects to tools engineers actually use.

Expensive for Individual Contributors

Harvest pricing: $12/month per user (1 seat minimum). That's reasonable for agencies billing clients monthly with complex invoicing needs. But for a solo developer who invoices 2-3 clients quarterly with simple timesheets, it's feature-bloat overhead.

Locu's approach: $12/month ($6 with Beta) for execution system + simple invoicing. You're not paying for expense management, budget forecasting, or team scheduling you'll never use.

---

Feature Comparison

---

When to Choose Harvest

✅ You're running a consulting agency or creative studio
✅ You need full invoicing with payment processing built-in
✅ You track expenses and need client reimbursement
✅ You manage team capacity and scheduling
✅ You need project budgets and profitability analysis
✅ You send client-facing professional invoices monthly
✅ You're already comfortable with Asana/Basecamp workflow
✅ You need a complete business back-office, not just time tracking

Harvest excels as a full-service consulting business platform.

---

When to Choose Locu

✅ You're a freelance developer or engineer (individual or small team)
✅ You need better execution (focus, sessions, task management)
✅ Your invoicing needs are simple (export timesheets, send via email)
✅ You work in Jira/Linear and need deep integration
✅ You want to work better and track naturally, then invoice simply
✅ You don't need expense tracking, team scheduling, or budget forecasting
✅ You're willing to handle payments separately (PayPal, Stripe, wire)
✅ You prefer focused tool for makers over full platform for agencies

Locu focuses on execution first, invoicing second.

---

The Real Difference: Back-Office vs Execution Layer

Harvest's philosophy: Be the complete business platform for service businesses. Handle time, expenses, budgets, invoices, payments, reports. One system for running your consulting business.

Locu's philosophy: Be the execution workspace for makers. Focus on better work execution (sessions, focus, tasks), make invoicing simple (export timesheets), let you use existing tools for everything else.

The fundamental difference:

• Harvest is for running a business (consultants, agencies)
• Locu is for doing the work (developers, makers)

Most freelance developers don't need to "run a consulting business"—they need to ship features for clients while tracking time accurately. Harvest's billing platform is overkill; Locu's execution + simple export is enough.

---

The Invoicing Philosophy Difference

Harvest's approach: Full-service billing

1. Track time in Harvest
2. Create invoice in Harvest (professional templates, branded)
3. Send from Harvest (client portal)
4. Process payment in Harvest (credit card, PayPal)
5. Send receipt from Harvest
6. Generate financial reports in Harvest

Locu's approach: Simple export

1. Work in focus sessions (time tracked naturally)
2. Export timesheet (CSV or formatted)
3. Send to client via email or accounting software
4. Client pays via existing method (wire, PayPal, Stripe)
5. Track in accounting software if needed (QuickBooks, etc.)

Trade-off: Harvest is more integrated (everything in one place). Locu is simpler (fewer features, but you probably don't need them).

For most freelance developers: Simple is better. You don't need branded client portals or integrated payment processing. You need accurate timesheets and easy export.

---

Common Harvest Pain Points (And How Locu Solves Them)

Pain: "I'm paying for features I never use"

With Harvest: Monthly invoice for $12. Look at features. Never used: expense tracking, team scheduling, budget forecasting, client portal. Paying for bloat.

With Locu: $12/month ($6 with Beta) for features you actually use: focus sessions, time tracking, task management, Jira/Linear sync. Nothing wasted.

Pain: "Still manual timer burden"

With Harvest: Beautiful invoicing platform built on manual time tracking foundation. Still need to remember to start/stop timers. Still lose billable hours to tracking failures.

With Locu: Session-based tracking reduces burden. Focus on execution, time tracking happens naturally. Invoice from better data.

Pain: "Integrations don't match my workflow"

With Harvest: Asana, Basecamp, Trello integrations. But I work in Jira and Linear. Either don't integrate (manual entry) or change my workflow (not happening).

With Locu: Built for engineering workflows. Jira and Linear native. Slack, GitHub, Calendar. Integrates where engineers actually work.

Pain: "Invoicing is great, but work is scattered"

With Harvest: Time tracked, invoice created. But during the month, work was scattered: no focus structure, lots of context switching, burnout risk. Invoice shows hours but not quality.

With Locu: Focus sessions structure work execution. Better execution → more billable hours → better quality → happier clients. Invoice reflects focused work, not scattered hours.

---

For Freelancers: The Value Comparison

Scenario: Freelance developer, $75/hour, 30 billable hours/month, 3 clients

With Harvest ($12/month):

Pros:

• Professional invoices sent from platform
• Integrated payment processing
• Detailed reports

Cons:

• Manual time tracking (lose 10-20% hours to tracking failures) = $225-450 lost/month
• No focus support (scattered execution, more hours needed per task)
• Paying for features not used (expenses, budgets, team features)
• Doesn't integrate with Jira/Linear (manual entry)

Effective monthly cost: $12 + $225-450 lost hours = $237-462/month

With Locu ($6-12/month):

Pros:

• Session-based tracking (lose <5% hours) = <$115 lost/month
• Focus sessions (better execution = fewer hours per task)
• Task management + Jira/Linear integration (less tool switching)
• Invoice prep: 20 minutes (export timesheet, send to clients)

Cons:

• Need to send invoices via email/accounting software (not platform)
• Handle payments separately (PayPal, Stripe, wire)

Effective monthly cost: $6-12 + <$115 lost hours = <$127/month

Net savings: $110-335/month = $1,320-4,020/year

---

Switching from Harvest

What you'll keep:

• Time tracking discipline
• Client/project organization
• Export and invoicing workflow (just simpler)

What you'll change:

• From manual timer → session-based tracking
• From platform invoicing → export + send manually
• From integrated payments → separate payment processing
• From feature-rich → focused execution

What you'll gain:

• Focus sessions with distraction blocking
• Less manual timer burden (sessions vs constant start/stop)
• Task management integrated
• Jira/Linear integration (if you use them)
• Better execution structure (Plan → Focus → Shutdown)
• Lower effective cost (fewer lost hours)

What you'll lose:

• Integrated invoicing (need to send manually)
• Payment processing (need PayPal/Stripe separately)
• Expense tracking (use separate app if needed)
• Client portal (send PDFs via email instead)
• Budget forecasting

Migration process:

1. Export final Harvest reports (for records)
2. Set up Locu with clients/projects (5 minutes)
3. Connect Jira/Linear if used (tasks auto-import)
4. First focus session (experience structured execution)
5. First invoice export (simpler than you think)
6. Send to clients via email (they probably prefer PDF anyway)

Setup time: 15 minutes
Learning curve: 2-3 days for session habit, invoicing is immediate

---

Pricing Comparison

Harvest: $12/month per user (1 seat minimum)
Locu: $12/month or $6/month (Beta discount)

At same price point, Harvest gives you:

• Time tracking (manual)
• Full invoicing platform
• Payment processing
• Expense management
• Project budgets
• Team features (unused if solo)

At same price point (or half with Beta), Locu gives you:

• Time tracking (session-based, less manual)
• Simple invoice export
• Focus sessions with blocking
• Task management
• Jira/Linear/Slack integration
• Work history and insights
• Daily planning/shutdown rituals

Different value propositions:

• Harvest: Complete back-office → worth it if you need all features
• Locu: Execution workspace → better value if you mainly need better work execution

---

The Honest Assessment

Harvest is genuinely excellent if you're running a consulting business or creative agency. The full invoicing, expense tracking, team management, and budget features are valuable when you need them.

But most freelance developers aren't running agencies—they're makers who bill clients for building stuff. They need:

• Better execution (focus, structure, sustainability)
• Accurate time tracking (without constant manual burden)
• Simple invoicing (export timesheet, send it, get paid)

Harvest gives you a full business platform. Locu gives you an execution workspace with simple billing export.

If you're running an agency: Harvest
If you're making things for clients: Locu

Ready to get things done?

Join makers who ship quality work consistently.

Get Started for Free

No credit card required

10-day free trial