If your firm bills by the hour, the tool you choose affects more than the timer on your screen. Some products collect activity from connected apps. Others read on-screen text, find patterns across the day, suggest entries from records already in a practice-management system, or combine several methods. The right fit depends on what you want captured, how much setup your firm can support, your billing system, and how much review you want to keep in your hands.
This guide compares ten products that publish features for legal timekeeping: Timekeepr, Ajax, Billables AI, PointOne, Laurel, WiseTime, Tokuma Time, LegalTime AI, Clio Manage, and Actionstep Trace. We included products whose first-party materials describe automatic work capture or suggestions for legal time entries. We left out general-purpose stopwatches and full practice-management products that only let a user start a timer.
We reviewed vendors' public product materials on October 26, 2026. Features and prices change, and an advertised integration or capture method may depend on a firm's plan, region, setup, or operating system. Confirm the details that matter to your practice directly with each vendor before you buy.
Quick comparison
| Product | How it approaches timekeeping | A fit to consider it for |
|---|---|---|
| Timekeepr by A&C Labs | Desktop activity notes become draft entries for your review | Firms that want a straightforward monthly price and a review-before-billing workflow |
| Ajax | Reads work content across the desktop, groups related activity, and drafts entries | Firms that want broad capture and billing-system connections, and are comfortable evaluating desktop content capture |
| Billables AI | Combines integrations with optional desktop app tracking and drafts entries | Firms that want a configurable integration mix and public per-user plan prices |
| PointOne | Offers integrated activity capture, retroactive capture, computer capture, voice, and timers | Firms that want several ways to move from manual timekeeping toward automatic capture |
| Laurel | Captures work activity and turns selected activities into suggested entries | Firms evaluating time capture alongside work-intelligence tools |
| WiseTime | Builds a private activity timeline, tags matters, and can draft narratives | Teams that want an activity timeline with matter tagging and a choice of plan sizes |
| Tokuma Time | Captures calls, email, research, and documents, then prepares a timesheet | Firms looking for a cross-platform legal timekeeping product with automatic matter placement |
| LegalTime AI | Uses app capture and practice-management connections to draft and sync entries | Firms whose billing platform is among its listed integrations |
| Clio Manage | Suggests entries for activity that may not yet be recorded in Clio | Firms already using Clio that prefer timekeeping within their existing system |
| Actionstep Trace | A desktop app captures activity outside Actionstep for use as billable events | Actionstep firms that want activity capture connected to their existing system |
1. Timekeepr by A&C Labs
Our recommendation for firms that want a clear monthly price, Mac and Windows support, and attorney review before billing.
Timekeepr runs on a desktop computer, notes on-screen text from the work in front of you, and drafts time entries for you to review. It never saves or sends screenshots, and it does not record call audio. Entries remain drafts until you approve them. Timekeepr costs $47 per user per month, with every feature, all integrations and their setup included. There is no user minimum, you can cancel anytime, and the two-week free trial requires no credit card.
Pros
- Supports Mac as well as Windows, as confirmed by A&C Labs.
- The workflow starts with work already happening on the computer rather than a timer the lawyer must remember to start.
- Draft entries are for the lawyer to review, edit, and approve before billing.
- The published monthly price is easy to find.
Cons and questions to check
- Ask for a demonstration of your billing workflow, including review, approval, and how approved entries are handled. The integration details and transfer method for each system have not been confirmed for this article. A&C Labs lists its current integrations at /integrations; systems not listed, including custom in-house systems, are set up during onboarding.
- Per-user pricing means the monthly subscription scales with the number of users; there is no minimum number of users.
- The public product information does not list minimum Mac or Windows versions, so confirm compatibility with your firm's devices.
Best for: A firm evaluating desktop-based capture, a human approval step, Mac or Windows support, and a published per-user monthly price. See Timekeepr for law firms.
2. Ajax
Ajax says it reads work content across apps, documents, email, phone calls, and browser activity; groups related work; drafts narratives; and syncs completed entries to supported billing systems. These are descriptions from Ajax's public materials.
Pros
- Broad capture and automatic grouping are designed for fragmented workdays.
- The vendor lists multiple legal billing-system connections and lets lawyers review entries before release.
- Firms can run a pilot before deciding whether to move to an annual contract.
Cons and questions to check
- Ajax does not publish a standard price; it says pricing depends on firm size and seats, with annual contracts after the pilot.
- Confirm the specific activity sources and billing systems your firm needs with Ajax.
- Its feature set is broader than a simple time-entry tool, so firms should decide whether the added workflow and administration are useful to them.
Best for: Firms evaluating broad desktop capture, automatic grouping, and established billing-system connections through a pilot. See Ajax's product overview and its pricing explanation.
3. Billables AI
Billables AI describes background activity capture through integrations with work tools, automatic drafting, matter matching, and review before approval. Its pricing page currently lists three monthly plans at $47, $109, and $169 per user, with different integration and enterprise features. The vendor also labels optional desktop-app tracking as beta in its product updates.
Pros
- The published plans make the per-user price and feature tiers easier to compare.
- Firms can choose an integration scope, from one workflow to broader app coverage.
- The vendor says it captures activity without screenshots and provides an explanation of the source activity for entries.
- Entries can be reviewed and approved, and the product includes controls for billing guidelines.
Cons and questions to check
- The amount of activity captured depends on the integrations and device settings the firm enables.
- Some features, including desktop-app tracking, have been labeled beta; confirm current availability for the exact apps your firm uses.
- Per-user pricing can add up as more timekeepers are included; confirm the features and integrations available on each plan.
Best for: Firms that want published per-user pricing and configurable connections to email, calendar, document, browser, and meeting tools. See Billables AI for attorneys, current plans, and its product update notes.
4. PointOne
PointOne presents several ways to capture time: integrations for email, calendars, and conferencing; a retroactive mode; computer capture; voice; and AI-assisted timers. Its help materials describe suggestions that users review and accept.
Pros
- Firms can choose between more familiar methods and more automatic capture.
- Retroactive capture can help reconstruct earlier activity from connected sources.
- Computer capture extends beyond the email and calendar events listed in its integration workflow.
- Voice and timers offer alternatives when a lawyer is away from the keyboard or prefers manual control.
Cons and questions to check
- A firm may need to configure and explain several capture modes to timekeepers.
- More than one capture method can make it important to set clear rules for avoiding duplicate entries.
- Public pricing is not listed on the product page; firms should ask for a quote and confirm the included integrations.
Best for: Firms that want a gradual path from timers and integrations to computer capture, with one vendor supporting several workflows. See PointOne Time and PointOne's capture guide.
5. Laurel
Laurel combines time capture with work-intelligence and billing products. Its help center describes captured work activities, suggestions that can be turned into draft entries, and AI-generated narratives. Laurel also offers a mobile app for reviewing and creating entries, but its help materials say mobile does not capture work activity.
Pros
- Captured activities can be reviewed, selected, and turned into entries with generated narratives.
- The wider product includes work-intelligence and billing tools.
- Mobile supports time-entry review and management when a timekeeper is away from a desktop.
Cons and questions to check
- Laurel positions its wider work-intelligence platform for enterprise firms; smaller practices may not need that broader scope.
- Work activity capture happens on desktop; the mobile app itself does not capture activity.
- Firms should ask about deployment, supported sources, and pricing for their size and systems.
Best for: Larger firms assessing time capture as part of a broader work-intelligence and billing program. See Laurel's product overview, how Laurel collects work activity, and how it creates entries.
6. WiseTime
WiseTime automatically collects activity into a daily timeline, helps tag work to cases, and can generate a narrative from selected timeline activity. Its pricing page describes a Professional plan for teams up to 25 members and an Enterprise plan for larger organizations; both require contacting sales for annual pricing.
Pros
- A private timeline gives lawyers activity to review without requiring a timer for every task.
- Automatic case detection and AI-assisted narratives reduce some manual sorting and writing.
- The current plan information lists Windows, Mac, and Linux support for its desktop time tracking.
- Team and enterprise options support firms with different sizes and connection needs.
Cons and questions to check
- Timekeeprs still review timeline activity and decide what to turn into an entry.
- Pricing is annual and provided by sales rather than shown as a public dollar amount.
- The Professional plan is limited to 25 members and cloud connections; larger organizations need the Enterprise plan for additional connectors and controls.
Best for: Teams that want a timeline-first workflow, automatic matter tagging, and an enterprise plan if they outgrow the smaller-team option. See WiseTime's features and plan details.
7. Tokuma Time
Tokuma Time is built for law firms and says it tracks calls, email, research, and documents, creates entries with narratives, and places work on clients and matters. The site says the product runs on Mac and Windows, and that timekeepers review entries before submitting them to billing.
Pros
- It is explicitly designed for law-firm timekeeping.
- The vendor describes automatic matter placement and asks the lawyer to place items it cannot match.
- Its public materials state support for Mac and Windows and describe direct submission to a firm's billing system.
Cons and questions to check
- The website asks firms to book a demo rather than publishing a price.
- Firms should verify that their specific billing system, apps, and region are supported during the demo.
- Public materials describe the workflow but do not provide an independent comparison of capture accuracy or recovered time.
Best for: Firms that want an automatic legal timesheet and direct billing submission and are comfortable evaluating fit in a demo. See Tokuma Time.
8. LegalTime AI
LegalTime AI says it captures activity across apps, drafts time entries with narratives and matter details, and syncs approved entries into a practice-management or billing system. Its site lists connections including Clio, PracticePanther, Filevine, Actionstep, TimeSolv, MyCase, LeanLaw, Sage Timeslips, SurePoint, Centerbase, and Harvest.
Pros
- The listed billing connections cover a range of tools used by law firms.
- Its stated workflow includes automatic entry drafting followed by user review and approval.
- The vendor says capture can be paused and that drafted entries are private until release.
Cons and questions to check
- Firms should confirm that their exact billing platform, plan, and desired connection are supported.
- Public pricing is not listed on the product page; the site directs prospective customers to a demo.
Best for: Firms whose billing system is in LegalTime AI's current integration list and that want a demo-based evaluation. See LegalTime AI.
9. Clio Manage
Clio Manage is a practice-management platform with timekeeping features. Clio describes AI suggestions for possible unlogged activity, including calls, emails, notes, and completed tasks. The fit is different from a standalone desktop tracker: the feature is part of the existing Clio environment.
Pros
- Time suggestions live inside the practice-management system a Clio firm may already use.
- Firms can keep time entries alongside their matters, communications, and billing workflow.
- A team may not need to add another vendor if Clio already meets its time-capture needs.
Cons and questions to check
- It is most relevant to firms already using Clio; it is not a stand-alone option for firms on another billing system.
- Firms should confirm which activity sources and AI time-entry features are available on their current plan.
- If the need is broad capture across desktop work outside Clio, compare the native suggestions with a dedicated capture product.
Best for: Existing Clio firms that want to begin with suggestions inside their current platform. See Clio's guide to AI time tracking and legal time and expense tracking.
10. Actionstep Trace
Trace is Actionstep's desktop time-capture product. Actionstep's support materials describe a background application that records activity outside Actionstep, including details about the active app, file, and content, so a user can create billable or non-billable events in Actionstep.
Pros
- Firms using Actionstep can capture activity from work outside the practice-management platform.
- The desktop app runs in the background and is intended to support an Actionstep-connected workflow.
- IT administrators can remotely install the application for timekeepers.
Cons and questions to check
- Trace is tied to Actionstep, so it is not a fit for firms whose billing system is elsewhere.
- The published setup instructions include administrator enablement and desktop installation, which firms should plan for.
- Ask Actionstep about current availability, pricing, and platform compatibility for your account.
Best for: Current Actionstep customers that want activity capture to feed their existing system. See Trace's installation guide and Actionstep's Trace announcement.
Which tool is best for your firm?
There is no useful universal winner if a firm's requirements differ. A firm that needs a wide billing-system integration list may reasonably prefer a product with those integrations already in place. A firm already committed to Clio or Actionstep may prefer to start with the timekeeping features built into that system. A larger firm looking for work analytics may need more than a simple time-entry workflow.
Consider Timekeepr if you want Mac and Windows support, desktop-based work capture, an approval step before billing, and a published $47 per-user monthly price. All integrations and setup are included, and the integration transfer method still needs confirmation. Compare the workflow using representative sample work; this guide does not establish a universal winner.
That is what “best” means here: the strongest fit for the needs above, not the best product for every law firm. Compare the workflow using your own devices, billing system, and actual pricing quote. Start with a Timekeepr demo request.
Sources and review date
Product claims in this guide link to each vendor's current public product or support materials. Vendor claims and feature descriptions are not independent verification. Reviewed October 26, 2026.