GITNUXSOFTWARE ADVICE
Market ResearchTop 10 Best Time Report Software of 2026
Top 10 Best Time Report Software ranking for teams, with technical comparisons of Clockify, Toggl Track, Harvest, and key tradeoffs.
How we ranked these tools
Core product claims cross-referenced against official documentation, changelogs, and independent technical reviews.
Analyzed video reviews and hundreds of written evaluations to capture real-world user experiences with each tool.
AI persona simulations modeled how different user types would experience each tool across common use cases and workflows.
Final rankings reviewed and approved by our editorial team with authority to override AI-generated scores based on domain expertise.
Score: Features 40% · Ease 30% · Value 30%
Gitnux may earn a commission through links on this page — this does not influence rankings. Editorial policy
Editor’s top 3 picks
Three quick recommendations before you dive into the full comparison below — each one leads on a different dimension.
Clockify
Clockify API enables programmatic time entry and project synchronization for automated reporting workflows.
Built for fits when teams need controlled time capture and automated reporting integration without manual export steps..
Toggl Track
Editor pickAPI access to time entries and related entities for external automation and reporting synchronization.
Built for fits when teams need consistent time capture with API-driven integrations and governed access..
Harvest
Editor pickHarvest API for time entry and project synchronization between time capture and downstream systems
Built for fits when mid-size teams need an integration-first time data model with admin control depth..
Related reading
Comparison Table
This comparison table maps Time Report Software tools across integration depth, including HR and calendar connections and the data model each tool enforces for timesheets, projects, and activity events. It also covers automation and API surface, including webhook and report endpoints, plus admin and governance controls such as RBAC, provisioning, configuration management, and audit log coverage to show tradeoffs in extensibility and compliance.
Clockify
time tracking APITime tracking workspace with detailed activity records, reports, and team management plus API access for time entries and project structures.
Clockify API enables programmatic time entry and project synchronization for automated reporting workflows.
Clockify’s data model centers on workspaces, users, projects, clients, and time entries, which reports aggregate into timesheets, utilization views, and exportable reporting datasets. Timer sessions, idle gaps, and manual edits connect the collection layer to downstream reporting and reconciliation. Integration depth matters because Clockify provides an API for time entries, projects, and related objects, which supports automation pipelines and external systems.
A tradeoff appears in governance scope when strict change control is required, since approvals and audit logs cover workflows but not every custom policy scenario without added automation. Clockify fits best for organizations that need report automation and controlled time capture while integrating with Jira, payroll systems, or internal project tracking via API or supported connectors.
- +API supports time entry, project, and user data automation
- +Timer and manual capture support consistent reporting inputs
- +Approvals help route time from entry to governed sign-off
- +RBAC separates permissions across workspace roles
- –Fine-grained policy controls require external automation work
- –Complex data reshaping for bespoke reports needs custom integration logic
Revenue operations teams
Automate client billing time rollups
Fewer reconciliation gaps
Project management teams
Track effort per project and milestone
More accurate planning
Show 2 more scenarios
Finance and payroll
Standardize time inputs for payroll
Lower payroll corrections
Apply controlled capture workflows and then export governed timesheets into payroll processing flows.
IT admin teams
Provision access and audit changes
Improved governance
Manage workspace access with roles and use audit visibility to track time data edits and approvals.
Best for: Fits when teams need controlled time capture and automated reporting integration without manual export steps.
Toggl Track
time tracking APITime tracking with reporting and role-based workspace administration plus documented API endpoints for time entries, clients, and projects.
API access to time entries and related entities for external automation and reporting synchronization.
Toggl Track fits teams that need consistent time capture and traceable reporting across projects, clients, and tags. The core data model maps time entries to those entities, which makes filtering, reporting, and exporting predictable for finance and operations. Integration depth is practical because many workflows stay in common project and ticketing tools, while the API supports additional routing and enrichment. Automation typically centers on pulling and pushing time events rather than building complex in-product state machines.
A tradeoff appears in automation and data shaping because Toggl Track exposes extensibility through API and exports, but it does not provide a native workflow builder for multi-step business rules. Organizations with highly specific schema needs often end up normalizing tags and project metadata outside the tool. Toggl Track works well when time entry needs tight operator consistency and when downstream systems can consume structured exports or API outputs.
- +Time entry model uses projects, clients, and tags for predictable reporting
- +API supports custom sync and automation beyond native integrations
- +Exports and reporting align with finance and operations review workflows
- +Workspace controls support user access boundaries across projects
- –Schema extensibility relies on API and tags, not custom data fields
- –Complex multi-step governance automation needs external tooling
- –Automation surface is event and data oriented rather than workflow driven
Agencies and project ops teams
Sync billable time to billing systems
Fewer reconciliation gaps
RevOps and finance operations
Standardize time tagging across teams
More accurate cost allocation
Show 2 more scenarios
Software and IT teams
Link time to tickets and releases
Clearer effort attribution
Integrate time capture with issue trackers so engineering effort maps to delivery milestones.
People operations
Audit and aggregate time trends
Better staffing decisions
Govern workspace access and aggregate work patterns for capacity planning and workload review.
Best for: Fits when teams need consistent time capture with API-driven integrations and governed access.
Harvest
time tracking reportingTime tracking with invoicing-ready reporting and admin governance plus API access for projects and time entries.
Harvest API for time entry and project synchronization between time capture and downstream systems
Harvest connects time capture to billing workflows using a data model that links users to projects, clients, and time entries. Integration depth is driven by an API that covers time entries, projects, and related reporting objects, which helps when systems must synchronize without manual CSV files. Automation and extensibility are strongest around time entry creation, updates, and reporting exports that keep downstream systems consistent. Governance is handled through admin user provisioning controls and permission boundaries for viewing and managing time and reporting artifacts.
A tradeoff appears when teams need very complex approval graphs or custom data schemas inside Harvest since the core schema stays focused on time, projects, and client accounting structures. Harvest fits teams that want tight integration into HRIS, payroll, PSA, or ticketing tools where time entries must land accurately and audibly. Use it when governance requirements include consistent time entry handling, approvals, and traceable changes across multiple teams.
- +API supports time entries, projects, and client-linked data
- +Web-based time capture ties directly to reporting structures
- +Admin controls cover user access, provisioning, and time permissions
- –Limited support for custom fields beyond the core time model
- –Complex approval workflows may require external automation orchestration
Operations analytics teams
Sync time entries into data warehouse
Consistent reporting dimensions
Agency project managers
Link work to client and project invoices
Fewer billing reconciliation steps
Show 2 more scenarios
People ops and admins
Provision users and enforce time visibility
Lower audit and access risk
RBAC-style access controls manage who can view and edit time and reporting data.
Finance automation teams
Export time for invoicing pipelines
More predictable throughput
Scheduled exports transform time entry data into downstream invoicing inputs and ledgers.
Best for: Fits when mid-size teams need an integration-first time data model with admin control depth.
RescueTime
automated time insightsAutomated activity time insights with productivity reports and account controls plus API access for activity summaries tied to tracked work.
RescueTime API for programmatic access to time reports and activity data.
RescueTime fits the time report use case with automated activity tracking, goal-based reporting, and web and desktop insights. Integration depth centers on importing time signals from supported sources and using organization configuration to control what data feeds reports.
The data model focuses on categorized activity with time aggregates that drive dashboards, alerts, and productivity reports. Automation and API surface emphasize programmatic access to reporting and behavior configuration for governed rollouts.
- +Automated tracking on desktop and web with activity categorization
- +Configurable goals and focus modes that affect report grouping
- +API access for exporting report data into internal systems
- +Organization-level configuration supports consistent reporting schema
- –Data categorization rules require periodic review for edge cases
- –Automation depends on supported sources and tracking agent behavior
- –API coverage is more reporting oriented than full event ingestion
- –Granular RBAC and audit trail details require careful admin verification
Best for: Fits when teams need governed time reporting with API-based export into internal dashboards.
Buddy Punch
workforce time clocksEmployee time clocks with scheduling and manager approval workflows plus integrations and API options for timesheets and users.
Timesheet approval workflow with configurable rules for rounding and exceptions.
Buddy Punch records time via a browser and mobile clocking workflow tied to employee schedules and jobs. Administration centers on approvals, alerts, and configurable policies for breaks, rounding, and exceptions.
The data model supports shifts, timesheets, and absence or schedule metadata that feed reporting and compliance exports. Automation relies on configurable rules and controlled user access rather than broad external event streaming.
- +Shift and timesheet data model supports exceptions and approvals
- +Configurable policies for rounding, breaks, and schedules reduce manual edits
- +Role-based access controls separate manager, admin, and employee permissions
- +Export formats support audit-friendly reconciliation workflows
- –Public API and automation hooks appear limited for deep system-to-system integration
- –Provisioning and schema customization options look narrow for custom data models
- –Automation coverage focuses on workflows inside the app rather than external triggers
- –Audit log granularity for administrative changes is not clearly documented
Best for: Fits when mid-size operations need controlled time capture, approvals, and reporting without heavy external automation.
Deputy
workforce operationsWorkforce management with time and attendance reporting, shift controls, and integrations plus an API for employee, timesheet, and schedule data.
Approval workflow with audited time edits, paired with API access to time entries and approval status.
Deputy fits teams that need schedule-driven time reporting with manager approval workflows and role-based access. The core model centers on shifts, timesheets, and time entries that flow into approvals and reporting.
Integration depth matters, because Deputy connects to common HR and payroll systems and exposes automation through an API and webhooks. Admin governance relies on configurable permissions, audit trails, and organization-level settings that control who can edit time and override rules.
- +Shift-based timesheets map directly into time entries and approval states
- +API and webhooks support automation and downstream reporting
- +RBAC controls edit rights and approval permissions across roles
- +Audit logging tracks changes to time entries and approvals
- –Time calculations depend on configuration, which can be complex
- –Custom integrations require schema alignment across time and roster objects
- –Approval workflows can be restrictive when exceptions are frequent
- –Higher configuration accuracy is needed to avoid downstream payroll mismatches
Best for: Fits when mid-size orgs need schedule to timesheet automation with auditability and API-based integrations.
Deputy
attendance reportingTime and attendance module with timesheet capture, validations, and audit-friendly approvals plus data export and integration surfaces for downstream reporting.
Schedule-to-timesheet workflow ties clocked hours to planned shifts with approval steps and audit-ready governance.
Deputy combines workforce scheduling with time reporting in one permissioned workflow, reducing mismatches between shifts and clock data. The data model ties timesheets to planned schedules, positions, and approval steps, so edits and approvals propagate through governance controls.
Automation features such as rules for timesheet visibility and manager approval workflows minimize manual correction cycles. Deputy adds an API and integration surface for extracting time and schedule entities and for pushing configuration through programmatic provisioning patterns.
- +Schedule-linked time reporting reduces manual reconciliation between planned and worked hours
- +Role-based access controls separate employee edits from manager approvals
- +Extensible API supports time and schedule data extraction for downstream systems
- +Workflow configuration controls who approves which timesheet changes
- –Complex approval chains can require careful governance setup
- –Custom reporting needs data modeling alignment across schedules and time entries
- –High-volume exports can stress integration throughput without batching
Best for: Fits when teams need schedule-driven timesheets with RBAC, approval governance, and an API for integrations.
Workyard
field time trackingJobsite time tracking with crew activity logs, reporting views, and integrations plus an API for pulling timesheet and job data.
Workflow-based time entry approvals with automation rules and an API that exposes time events for external systems.
Workyard is time report software built for workforce visibility with structured time tracking workflows and managerial review paths. Its core capabilities center on scheduled time entries, time approvals, and location-aware or role-aware reporting that feeds operational and labor analytics.
Workyard’s distinct angle is the way it turns time reporting into governed processes, with configuration controls that limit how entries are created and corrected. Integration depth is driven through an API and automated workflows that map time events into downstream systems for reporting and compliance.
- +API-oriented data model for time entries, approvals, and work events
- +Automation hooks for time approval and correction workflows
- +RBAC-style governance for roles across teams and locations
- +Audit-ready workflow trails for time changes and approvals
- –Complex schema mapping is required for external payroll structures
- –Automation scenarios can require admin configuration time
- –Some reporting customizations need data normalization upstream
- –Edge-case handling for late changes can add operational friction
Best for: Fits when mid-size organizations need governed time reporting with API-driven integrations and automation around approvals.
TSheets
timesheets workforceEmployee timesheets with schedules and job codes, manager approvals, and API-driven integration options for time data.
TSheets API and import/export interfaces for provisioning time entries and syncing timesheets.
TSheets produces time records and timesheets for distributed workforces with clocking and timesheet workflows. Integration depth centers on payroll and HR connectivity plus exportable time data for external systems.
Automation uses configurable rules for timesheet submission, approval flows, and reminders tied to organizational roles. An API and webhooks support data synchronization and schedule or time entry updates across connected systems.
- +API supports time entry create and update workflows for external systems
- +Role-based timesheet approval flows align entries to governance requirements
- +Exports and integrations reduce manual rekeying into payroll and HR systems
- +Configuration supports recurring scheduling and time rules
- –Automation logic relies on configuration patterns with limited conditional expressiveness
- –Data model complexity can increase reconciliation work for edge-case time edits
- –Audit and admin tooling depth is less detailed than dedicated admin suites
- –Throughput during bulk imports depends on batch patterns and schedules
Best for: Fits when mid-market teams need time reporting integration plus approval governance with API-driven sync.
Paymo
project time trackingProject time tracking with resource reporting, billing workflows, and API access for timesheets and projects.
Timesheet and approval workflow configuration with RBAC controls across clients and projects.
Paymo fits teams that need time tracking tied to projects, tasks, and client work with granular approvals and reporting. It supports billable time, timesheet workflows, and role-based access to control who can view, edit, and submit entries.
Paymo’s automation surface centers on workflow configuration and integrations that connect tracked work to project artifacts and downstream reporting. Admin governance relies on user roles, project permissions, and auditability of time-related actions.
- +Project and timesheet workflows keep time linked to client deliverables
- +Role-based access controls limit edits and visibility by project and workspace
- +Automation reduces manual follow-ups around approvals and status changes
- +Integration paths connect time records to task and reporting contexts
- –Automation and rules coverage is narrower than systems with full event APIs
- –Granular schema controls for custom time fields feel limited
- –API surface details for high-throughput time imports are constrained
- –Cross-tool governance audits can require extra effort to consolidate
Best for: Fits when client service teams need controlled timesheets with workflow automation and project-linked reporting.
How to Choose the Right Time Report Software
This buyer's guide covers Clockify, Toggl Track, Harvest, RescueTime, Buddy Punch, Deputy, Workyard, TSheets, and Paymo as time report software options for governed reporting and integration-heavy workflows.
The guide focuses on integration depth, the underlying time data model, automation and API surface, and admin and governance controls across these tools so evaluation can stay concrete.
Time reporting and governance for tracked work, shift activity, and approvals
Time report software turns collected time signals into reports that finance, operations, and managers can review by person, client, project, shift, or activity category.
Most tools also add governance through approvals, audit visibility, and role-based access so time entries can move from capture to sign-off. Tools like Clockify and Toggl Track use a structured time data model around projects and related entities, while Deputy and Workyard anchor time reporting to schedules, shifts, and approval workflows.
Evaluation criteria built around integration, data schema, automation, and governance
Integration depth and the data model determine whether time reporting can plug into payroll, HR, billing, and internal analytics without fragile exports and manual mapping.
Automation and API surface determine whether systems can provision time entries, sync project or schedule structures, and route approvals. Admin and governance controls determine whether the tool can support controlled edits, RBAC boundaries, and audit log expectations during reporting cycles.
API-based time entry and entity synchronization
Clockify, Toggl Track, and Harvest publish APIs that support programmatic time entry and project or client synchronization so reporting can be automated without copy-paste exports. TSheets also emphasizes API-driven import and export interfaces for syncing timesheets so external systems can provision time data.
Time data model aligned to reporting rollups
Clockify structures time around projects, tasks, clients, and teams so reports can aggregate by person, client, and date range. Toggl Track and Harvest center on projects, clients, and tags so reporting stays consistent, while Deputy and Workyard tie time reporting to shifts and approvals so schedule-linked reporting is repeatable.
Automation hooks tied to capture-to-approval workflows
Harvest supports a webhook-style automation surface tied to time entries and reporting, which helps move governed time data downstream. Workyard and Buddy Punch focus on workflow automation inside the product for time approval and correction paths, including configurable rounding and exception handling in Buddy Punch.
Governed approvals with role-based access control
Clockify includes approvals to route time from entry to governed sign-off and uses RBAC to separate workspace permissions across roles. Deputy and Workyard add role-based access boundaries around employee edits and manager approvals, and Deputy tracks changes to time entries and approvals in audit logs.
Organization-level configuration and schema consistency controls
RescueTime emphasizes organization-level configuration that controls what activity feeds reports so the reporting schema stays consistent across deployments. RescueTime also uses categorized activity time aggregates that directly drive dashboards and alerts for governed time reporting.
Throughput-aware integration behavior for bulk changes
Deputy notes that high-volume exports can stress integration throughput without batching, which matters for payroll cutovers and mass schedule updates. TSheets flags that bulk import throughput depends on batch patterns and schedules, which directly impacts how integration pipelines should schedule sync jobs.
A control-depth decision path for time reporting and integrations
Start by mapping the integration target and the time data entities that must exist in both systems, because APIs and data models differ sharply across Clockify, Toggl Track, Harvest, and Deputy.
Then validate whether automation can move time from capture to approvals and whether admin governance can prevent invalid edits, especially for schedule-linked tools like Deputy and Workyard.
Pick the time data model that matches how reporting must aggregate
Choose Clockify or Toggl Track when reporting needs consistent rollups by person, client, projects, and tags because both products structure time around these entities. Choose Deputy or Workyard when reporting must stay anchored to shifts, timesheets, and approval steps because their models tie clocked hours to planned schedules.
Validate API coverage for the entities that must be created and updated
For project and time synchronization, Clockify and Toggl Track focus on time entries plus related entities like projects, clients, and users through documented APIs. For schedule-driven provisioning, Deputy pairs API and webhooks for employee, timesheet, and schedule data and includes approval status in audited changes.
Confirm automation style matches the workflow outside the tool
If automation needs to react to time entry and reporting events, Harvest uses an automation surface that is tied to time entries and reporting. If automation is mainly about routing approvals and exceptions inside the app, Buddy Punch and Workyard rely on configurable workflow rules and managerial review paths.
Stress-test governance with RBAC boundaries and audit expectations
If reporting requires controlled edits before sign-off, Clockify and Deputy include RBAC and approvals so time can move into governed states. Deputy also tracks changes to time entries and approvals in audit logs, while Buddy Punch notes that audit log granularity for administrative changes is not clearly documented.
Plan for integration throughput during cutovers and bulk imports
If the integration must sync large volumes, Deputy warns that high-volume exports can stress integration throughput without batching. TSheets highlights that bulk import throughput depends on batch patterns and schedules, which should shape how sync jobs are scheduled and throttled.
Which teams get the best governed reporting outcomes from these time tools
Time report software fits teams that must standardize how time is recorded and then turn that time into reports that can survive finance review and operational audits.
The best fit depends on whether the business anchors reporting to projects and tags or to shifts and timesheets with approvals and audit logs.
Client service and project accounting teams that need programmable time-to-report sync
Clockify and Toggl Track fit when consistent project-linked reporting must be generated from structured time data and synchronized through APIs. Harvest fits when finance-ready entities like clients and invoices must stay aligned with time entries through API-driven workflows.
Mid-size operations running schedule-driven labor with approvals and audit trails
Deputy fits when shifts and timesheets map directly into approval states and when audit logging must track time edits and approval changes. Workyard fits when jobsite visibility and workflow-based time entry approvals must be consistent across roles and locations.
Teams that need schedule exceptions, rounding policy control, and managed timesheet workflows
Buddy Punch fits when configurable policies for breaks, rounding, and exceptions reduce manual edits and support manager approval workflows. This segment also tends to prefer workflow configuration inside the app over deep external event ingestion.
Organizations running automated activity-based reporting with centralized configuration
RescueTime fits when time reporting is derived from automated desktop and web activity tracking and exported for internal dashboards through its API. RescueTime also fits when organization-level configuration needs to control what activity categories feed reports.
Distributed workforce time collection that must sync timesheets into external systems
TSheets fits when time entry create and update workflows must be supported via API and webhooks for provisioning and synchronization. This segment also benefits from role-based timesheet approval flows that align entries to governance requirements.
Pitfalls that break governed reporting and make integrations brittle
Many time reporting deployments fail when the chosen tool does not match how time entities must be created, updated, and governed in connected systems.
Other failures come from assuming API coverage supports the full workflow and from underestimating admin governance setup effort for complex approvals.
Choosing a tool with API coverage that only exports reports, not time entry entities
RescueTime emphasizes API access for activity summaries and reporting exports, so it can be a mismatch for teams that require full programmatic time entry and project provisioning like Clockify, Toggl Track, or Harvest. For time entry and entity synchronization, Clockify, Toggl Track, and Harvest provide APIs that target time entries and project structures.
Assuming schema extensibility can replace proper data modeling alignment
Toggl Track and Harvest rely on the core time model, and Harvest notes limited support for custom fields beyond that core model. Custom reporting that depends on extra fields can require external mapping logic, so Clockify and Toggl Track integrations often need additional custom logic for bespoke report reshaping.
Underestimating governance setup effort for multi-step approvals and exception handling
Deputy cautions that approval workflows can be restrictive when exceptions are frequent, which means governance config must reflect real variance in schedules. Clockify notes that fine-grained policy controls can require external automation work, so internal policy requirements should be validated against automation and RBAC boundaries.
Ignoring integration throughput limits during bulk imports and mass schedule updates
Deputy flags that high-volume exports can stress integration throughput without batching, and TSheets notes that throughput during bulk imports depends on batch patterns and schedules. Sync pipelines should implement batching strategies or risk delayed time reporting and reconciliation.
Picking a schedule-linked system when the business needs project and tag-based rollups
Deputy and Workyard anchor reporting to shifts, timesheets, and approvals, which is correct for schedule-driven labor but can add complexity when reporting must roll up primarily by projects and tags. Clockify and Toggl Track center on projects and related entities, which matches client and project accounting rollups better than shift-centered schemas.
How We Selected and Ranked These Tools
We evaluated Clockify, Toggl Track, Harvest, RescueTime, Buddy Punch, Deputy, Workyard, TSheets, and Paymo using the provided feature coverage and operational notes around time data models, automation and API surfaces, and admin governance controls. We rated each tool on features, ease of use, and value, then produced an overall rating as a weighted average in which features carry the most weight while ease of use and value each account for the same share. This editorial scoring stays criteria-based across integration depth, automation controllability, and governance mechanisms rather than hands-on lab testing.
Clockify stood apart because its published API supports programmatic time entry plus project synchronization for automated reporting workflows, and that capability increases both integration depth and governance automation coverage, which lifted features more than the other factors.
Frequently Asked Questions About Time Report Software
Which tools provide API access to time entries for automated reporting without manual export steps?
How do time tools handle SSO and security governance for admin-controlled access?
What are the main data-migration challenges when moving existing time logs into a new time reporting system?
Which platform types fit schedule-driven time reporting where timesheets must match shifts?
How do approval workflows differ when teams need audit-ready correction and manager sign-off?
Which tools support reporting automation based on time events rather than just static time summaries?
What integration patterns work best for connecting time data to payroll or HR systems?
When teams need category-based activity reporting instead of only project timesheets, which tool fits?
What admin controls matter most when multiple managers and roles must restrict who can edit time?
How should a team decide between project-centric tooling and workforce scheduling tooling?
Conclusion
After evaluating 10 market research, Clockify stands out as our overall top pick — it scored highest across our combined criteria of features, ease of use, and value, which is why it sits at #1 in the rankings above.
Use the comparison table and detailed reviews above to validate the fit against your own requirements before committing to a tool.
Tools reviewed
Primary sources checked during evaluation.
Referenced in the comparison table and product reviews above.
Keep exploring
Comparing two specific tools?
Software Alternatives
See head-to-head software comparisons with feature breakdowns, pricing, and our recommendation for each use case.
Explore software alternatives→In this category
Market Research alternatives
See side-by-side comparisons of market research tools and pick the right one for your stack.
Compare market research tools→FOR SOFTWARE VENDORS
Not on this list? Let’s fix that.
Our best-of pages are how many teams discover and compare tools in this space. If you think your product belongs in this lineup, we’d like to hear from you—we’ll walk you through fit and what an editorial entry looks like.
Apply for a ListingWHAT THIS INCLUDES
Where buyers compare
Readers come to these pages to shortlist software—your product shows up in that moment, not in a random sidebar.
Editorial write-up
We describe your product in our own words and check the facts before anything goes live.
On-page brand presence
You appear in the roundup the same way as other tools we cover: name, positioning, and a clear next step for readers who want to learn more.
Kept up to date
We refresh lists on a regular rhythm so the category page stays useful as products and pricing change.