compare
Most teams reach Microsoft Planner sideways. Someone opens the Planner tab in a Teams channel, makes a few buckets, drags in a handful of tasks, and three weeks later nobody can say which of the six plans is the real one. The tool is not the problem. Planner is deliberately thin, and the way it is licensed means two people looking at the same app can be looking at two different feature sets. Getting value out of it is less about learning the interface and more about deciding, early, what belongs in it and what does not.
The single biggest source of confusion is that "Microsoft Planner" refers to a tier, not just an app. Microsoft's pricing page lists three levels, and the differences matter before any button gets clicked.
The base level, simply called Microsoft Planner, is included in Microsoft 365 at no extra cost. It gives real-time collaboration, task creation with files, checklists and labels, tasks organised by My Day, My Tasks and Assigned to me, basic and custom plan templates, and Grid, Board, Schedule and Chart views. It can display task dependencies and custom task fields that someone else created, but creating them is not part of this tier.
Planner Plan 1 costs $10.00 per user per month paid yearly. It adds sub-tasks, premium plan templates, the ability to view portfolios, backlogs and sprints, the ability to create task dependencies, Calendar, Timeline (Gantt) and People views, project goals, milestones, and the ability to create custom task fields.
Planner and Project Plan 3 costs $30.00 per user per month paid yearly. It adds task history, an assignments view, the ability to create portfolios, baselines and critical path, advanced dependencies with lead and lag, plus the Project desktop app and Project Online.
The practical reading of that list is that the free-with-Microsoft-365 Planner has no Gantt view. Timeline is a Plan 1 feature. Teams who assume they can draw a schedule in Planner because it is "already paid for" discover this at exactly the wrong moment, usually the week a client asks for a delivery date.
A plan that survives past week two is almost always one where three decisions were made before any task was typed.
A plan in Planner is tied to a Microsoft 365 Group, which means it also creates a mailbox, a SharePoint site and a Teams presence unless it is created inside an existing group. Making a plan is therefore heavier than making a list. The rule that keeps small teams sane is one plan per ongoing stream of work, not one plan per request. A client, a product, a recurring internal function: those are plans. "Website refresh phase 2" is a bucket inside one.
Buckets are the columns, and Planner does not enforce any meaning on them. Two conventions work and mixing them does not. Either buckets are stages (To do, In progress, In review, Done) or buckets are areas of the work (Design, Copy, Build, QA). Stage buckets suit teams who want to see flow. Area buckets suit teams who want to see coverage, and then use the Progress field to carry stage. Choosing one and writing it at the top of the plan description prevents the slow drift where half the team treats a column as a stage and half treats it as a category.
Planner allows multiple assignees per task and shows everything assigned to a person across every plan in My Tasks. That view is only useful if assignment actually means "this person is doing it". Teams that assign three people to a task as a way of saying "these three should know about it" destroy the one view that makes Planner worth using. Use checklist items for sub-steps, comments for awareness, and a single assignee for ownership.
Labels are the only dimension available on the free tier that cuts across buckets, and there is a fixed set of them per plan. That scarcity is useful. Labels should carry exactly one axis, and the axis should be the one people filter by most: client, priority, or channel. Teams that spend labels on a second copy of the bucket names lose the ability to answer questions like "show everything for this client regardless of stage", which is usually the question a manager asks first.
Once those four are settled, the actual setup is fast. Create the plan, add buckets, add the label set, and add tasks with due dates. Skip everything else on the first pass. Custom fields, dependencies and templates can all be introduced later without rebuilding the board, and introducing them on day one tends to produce a structure nobody remembers the reason for.
Planner's views are not alternative skins. Each one answers a different question, and knowing which is which stops people from fighting the board.
| View | Question it answers | Tier needed |
|---|---|---|
| Board (Grid) | What state is each piece of work in | Included in Microsoft 365 |
| Schedule | What is due this week | Included in Microsoft 365 |
| Chart | Where is work piling up, and on whom | Included in Microsoft 365 |
| Timeline (Gantt) | What has to finish before what | Planner Plan 1 |
| People | Who is carrying too much | Planner Plan 1 |
| Portfolio | How do several plans compare | View at Plan 1, create at Plan 3 |
The Chart view is the one most small teams ignore and should not. It breaks tasks down by status, by bucket and by assignee in one screen, which is usually enough to catch the two failure modes that kill small-team plans: everything sitting in one bucket, and one person holding half the open work.
Planner has no intake. Work arrives in chat, email and hallway conversation, and someone has to retype it. The teams that keep their plan honest pick one intake habit and stick to it, most often creating the task from the Teams message with the "Create task" action so the original message stays linked. Without that, the plan quietly becomes a subset of the work and people stop trusting it.
The failure is gradual and easy to miss. A board that holds eighty percent of the work still looks healthy, so nobody raises it, but the twenty percent living in direct messages is where the surprises come from. A weekly habit of asking one question in the stand-up, whether anything worked on that week never made it onto the board, catches the drift before the board becomes decorative.
Each Planner task has a comment field, and those comments post to the group mailbox rather than into the Teams channel where the team is actually talking. In practice, decisions get made in the channel and the task keeps a stale description. This is the single most common reason a Planner board ages badly. Tools that keep the discussion attached to the card avoid it structurally, which is worth weighing if a team is comparing options, and is a large part of why boards with built-in chat read differently from boards without it. The feature comparison pages are a reasonable place to see how different products split conversation from cards.
Planner tasks carry a start date and a due date, but without Plan 1 there are no dependencies to create, so moving one date does not move anything downstream. On the free tier, due dates are reminders rather than a schedule. That is fine for operational work. It is not fine for anything with a delivery commitment, and pretending otherwise is how a plan turns into a wall of overdue red.
Completed tasks stay in the plan and the board grows. Planner's filter and Group by controls handle this, but somebody has to use them. A five minute weekly pass, where completed tasks older than a fortnight get reviewed and the plan gets regrouped by Progress, keeps the board readable indefinitely.
For a team of five already paying for Microsoft 365, base Planner adds nothing. Microsoft 365 Business Basic is listed at $7.00 per user per month paid yearly, so the task management is effectively riding along with mail and Teams.
The moment a Gantt view, task dependencies or custom fields become necessary, the figure changes. Planner Plan 1 at $10.00 per user per month paid yearly is an addition on top of the Microsoft 365 licence, not a replacement for it. For five people that is $50.00 a month for scheduling features that several standalone tools include in their entry tier or their free tier. Trello, for example, publishes Timeline, Calendar, Table, Dashboard and Map views at its Premium level, listed at $10 per user per month billed annually, with a free plan covering up to 10 collaborators and up to 10 boards per Workspace.
The comparison is not simply price against price. Staying inside Microsoft 365 means one identity, one compliance boundary and one admin console, which for some organisations settles the question on its own. But a team that only needs a board and a schedule should know it is paying a per-seat premium for the scheduling half. A look at how board tools price the same capability is a quick way to size that gap, and the pricing side of the comparison is usually more revealing than the feature checklists.
Planner is built for task tracking inside a group. It is not built for time tracking, client-facing boards, complex resource levelling, or work that needs more than a handful of custom fields. Microsoft's own answer to those needs is to move up to Planner and Project Plan 3 at $30.00 per user per month paid yearly, which brings baselines, critical path and the Project desktop app. That is a real product for real portfolio management, and it is also three times the price of most board tools.
The honest test is whether the team needs a scheduler or a board. A scheduler models dependencies, slack and critical path, and its value shows up when a slipped task has to be traced through twenty others. A board models state and ownership, and its value shows up daily. Most teams of five to twenty need a board with a decent timeline attached, which is precisely the gap between the free Planner tier and Plan 1.
Pick the meaning of a bucket, write it into the plan description, and reduce the number of plans until each one matches an ongoing stream of work. If the timeline view turns out to be the thing the team keeps asking for, price Plan 1 against a board tool that includes Gantt at its entry level before adding a second per-seat licence to every person. Pinateca is one of the tools worth putting on that shortlist, since kanban, Gantt, calendar and chat sit in the same plan rather than behind separate tiers.
The base Microsoft Planner tier is included in Microsoft 365 at no additional cost, and that covers task creation, checklists, labels, and the Grid, Board, Schedule and Chart views. Gantt (Timeline) view, sub-tasks, task dependencies and created custom fields sit in Planner Plan 1, which Microsoft lists at $10.00 per user per month paid yearly. So it is free until the team needs a schedule.
To Do is a personal task list for one person. Planner is a shared board tied to a Microsoft 365 Group, meant for a team to track work together. Project is the scheduling engine, with baselines, critical path and resource levelling, and it now sits behind the Planner and Project Plan 3 licence at $30.00 per user per month paid yearly.
One per ongoing stream of work, not one per project request. Each plan creates or joins a Microsoft 365 Group with its own mailbox and SharePoint site, so plans are expensive to make and awkward to retire. Phases and workstreams belong in buckets or labels inside an existing plan.
Only by giving that person access to the underlying Microsoft 365 Group, which normally means a guest account in the tenant. There is no read-only public board link, so teams that regularly share progress with people outside the organisation usually end up exporting a status summary by hand or running client-facing work in a separate tool.
Task comments post to the Microsoft 365 Group mailbox that backs the plan, not to the channel conversation. The channel and the card are separate places, so a decision made in chat does not update the task. The usual workaround is to create tasks directly from Teams messages so the original message stays linked to the card.