Timekit alternatives.
Timekit was a solid scheduling API for human booking flows, but development has stagnated — we found no meaningful releases in our last check — and it predates the multi-agent era entirely. If your Timekit-based product is adding AI agents, the honest advice is to plan a migration: AgentDraft is the alternative built for that case, with conflict-free calendar writes, agent priority, and a per-agent email inbox behind one API.
Updated
The honest case is thin but real: Timekit's API has powered human booking flows for years, and integrations that were built against it still work. If you shipped a booking-per-project or marketplace-scheduling product on Timekit, the availability logic, the resource model, and the booking flow you wrote are functioning today. That inertia is worth something — a working integration has zero migration cost, and this page is not going to pretend otherwise.
Two problems, one compounding the other. The first is stagnation: as of our 2026-07-01 check we found no meaningful recent releases, which means no fixes coming, no new provider coverage, and no roadmap answer to whatever your product needs next. Betting new work on a dormant dependency is a risk you should price explicitly.
The second is structural. Timekit was designed for one human-facing application as the calendar's writer. It has no concept of agent identity, no priority between competing writers, no holds an agent can take while it confirms with a human, and no advertised protection against the check-then-book race: when two AI agents each check availability and then book, both checks can pass and the human ends up double-booked. Products built on Timekit are now adding AI agents on top of an API that was never built for concurrent autonomous writers — and that gap doesn't close with a wrapper; it has to be closed at the storage layer, where the check and the write are one atomic operation.
| Comparison point | Timekit | AgentDraft |
|---|---|---|
| Per-agent email inbox | No | Yes — addressable per-agent mailbox, audit-logged |
| Conflict-free calendar writes | Human-scheduling booking API; multi-agent race protection not part of the product surface | Yes — storage-level conditional write; one row per time bucket in one transaction |
| Agent priority + bump window | Not a concept in the product | Yes — per-user ranking; 30s default bump window |
| Holds with TTL | Not an agent-facing primitive | Yes — claim a slot while confirming, auto-expires |
| Append-only audit trail | Not advertised | Yes — across mail, holds, commits, evictions, rule changes |
| Typed 409 on lost races | Not advertised | Yes — outranked with winner's identity and audit reference |
| Entry price | Not evaluated — verify current plans at timekit.io | Free Developer tier, no card; $10/mo Individual; $25/mo Team |
Timekit rows reflect the public product surface as checked on 2026-07-01. If we've mis-stated a feature — or if development has resumed — tell us and we'll correct it.
Genuinely: if your existing Timekit integration works, no AI agents will write to the calendar, and nothing on your roadmap depends on new scheduling features, staying put is defensible. Migration has a cost, and paying it to reach feature parity — rather than new capability — is a bad trade. The evaluation changes only when a second writer enters the picture or when the stagnation risk starts blocking something you need to ship.
Choose AgentDraft when the product on top of Timekit is adding AI agents — a booking copilot, an email-driven scheduler, anything autonomous that writes to the calendar. The migration surface is small: availability lookups map to GET /v1/availability, booking creation maps to POST /v1/bookings, and AgentDraft connects to the calendars you already use, so no calendar data moves — you re-point the write path. What you gain is the agent-native layer Timekit never had: priority-ranked conflict resolution at the storage level (in the open-source collision benchmark, 100.0% one-winner outcomes across 500 concurrent attempts with 0 double-commits, p99 112 ms), holds with a TTL, a 30-second bump window, an append-only audit trail, and a per-agent email inbox in the same API.
Frequently asked
Is Timekit still maintained?
As of our last check (July 2026), Timekit's development appears stagnant — we found no meaningful recent releases. Existing integrations keep working, but stagnation has a real cost: no fixes, no new provider coverage, and no answer to the multi-agent scheduling problem. Verify against Timekit's own changelog before betting new work on it.
What does a Timekit-to-AgentDraft migration involve?
Conceptually a small surface: availability lookups map to GET /v1/availability, booking creation maps to POST /v1/bookings, and cancellations map to the bookings API. AgentDraft connects to the calendars you already use, so no calendar data migrates — you re-point the write path. Most of the work is deciding agent identities and priorities, which Timekit had no concept of.
What does AgentDraft add that Timekit never had?
Agent-native primitives: per-agent identity and priority ranking, holds with a TTL, a 30-second bump window for higher-priority evictions, an append-only audit trail across every state change, typed 409 responses that tell a losing agent who outranked it, and a per-agent email inbox — all behind one API. Timekit was built for one human-facing app as the calendar's only writer.
When does it make sense to stay on Timekit?
When your existing integration works, no AI agents will write to the calendar, and nothing on your roadmap depends on new scheduling features. A working integration with zero migration cost is a legitimate reason to stay. The moment a second writer — human tool or AI agent — shares the calendar, the calculus changes.
- AgentDraft vs. Calendly — the closest published head-to-head for human-scheduling tools.
- The multi-agent collision benchmark — the 500-attempt receipts behind the coordination claims.
- AgentDraft pricing — free Developer tier, $10/mo Individual, $25/mo Team.
- Multi-agent scheduling glossary — bump window, holds, outranked, and the rest of the vocabulary.