ScreenJournal vs Timely

Updated on 10 July 2026

Timely tracks work automatically into a private personal memory and drafts timesheets its users approve, without screenshots or keystroke logging. ScreenJournal is a team work visibility tool: it reads on-screen work across a whole team, writes a timeline of what each person did, then deletes the raw screen data.

The two share an ambition, ending manual timesheets, and a refusal to store footage. They differ on two axes that matter to a team: what the record is written from, and who gets to see it.

ScreenJournal is an AI work visibility tool that reads on-screen work as it happens, turns it into a detailed timeline of what each person actually did, and then deletes the raw screen data. Timelines accumulate into a searchable chronicle of everyone's work history, and from them ScreenJournal generates timesheets and reports automatically and drafts standup summaries on request, answering questions about any of it in plain English.

What is Timely?

Timely, made by Memory in Oslo, is automatic AI time tracking for consultancies, agencies and professional-services firms, with dedicated pitches to lawyers and accountants. Its desktop Memory tracker records the apps and websites a person actively uses as metadata: app name, window title, URL and sometimes a file name, and it never records keystrokes, screenshots or audio, a stance Timely documents as a strict anti-surveillance policy. Calendar and tool integrations, including Google and Outlook calendars, Teams, Zoom and GitHub, feed meetings and events into the same timeline. Timely's AI then drafts timesheet entries for one-click approval. Each person's tracked memory is fully private to them: managers and colleagues see only the entries the person logs. Data is hosted in the cloud, on ISO 27001-certified AWS servers in Europe per Timely's privacy page, and tracked memories remain until the user deletes them. It runs on the web with desktop trackers for macOS and Windows; team management, dashboards and capacity reporting typically arrive on higher tiers.

How do Timely and ScreenJournal compare?

Neither stores footage, so the comparison comes down to the source of the record and who can see it.

What is the timesheet written from?

Timely's timesheet is written from metadata; ScreenJournal's is written from the work. Metadata is a decent sketch of a day: which apps, which sites, which meetings, for how long. It still leaves the AI guessing at what the time was for, which is why Timely routes every draft through the person for tagging and approval. ScreenJournal reads the on-screen work itself, so the timeline already knows the spreadsheet was the month-end reconciliation for a named client, and the timesheet lines arrive with per-line source badges and a to-verify count. Review stays human on both sides; the difference is how much truth is in the draft before a human touches it. For agencies billing team time, that difference is the gap between reconstructing the week and confirming it, which is why billing clients for team time starts from the work record.

Who sees the record?

Timely's raw record belongs to each individual; ScreenJournal's record is shared between the employee and the team, with employee controls built in. Timely's design is deliberate and honest: your tracked memory is private, and your manager sees only what you log, per configuration. The consequence is that team-level truth depends on each person's logging, and a manager's questions stop at the entries. ScreenJournal makes the derived timeline visible to the employee and their manager alike, then gives employees real controls: personal activity is skipped in real time, redaction erases an entry entirely from everyone's view, and scores are contestable. From that shared record come weekly reports, a role-normalised Effort Score, and the searchable chronicle of the team's work, retained as the most recent 12 months of derived work history, with raw screen data deleted immediately during processing as described in derive and discard.

When is Timely the right choice?

Timely is the right choice when private, metadata-level tracking fits how your firm works.

• Your professionals want automatic timesheet drafts they alone review, with raw activity private to each person.
• Metadata plus calendar integrations captures enough of your billable day to draft from.
• An explicitly anti-surveillance tool is a requirement of your culture or your hiring market.
• You mainly need timesheets, project budgets and capacity planning rather than operational work visibility.

When is ScreenJournal the right choice?

ScreenJournal is the right choice when the team needs one truthful record of the work.

• You bill clients for team time and want timesheets drafted from the work itself, not from app names.
• You manage delivery across a team and need to see what was produced, not only what was logged.
• You run a call centre or outsourcing operation where voice is part of the work.
• You want plain-English answers about the team's work, through chat or MCP, from a shared record.
• You want employee privacy handled by engineering: redaction, PII removal and deleted raw screen data, rather than by keeping the record private to each person.

Frequently asked questions

Does Timely take screenshots or log keystrokes?

No. Timely publicly documents a strict anti-surveillance stance: its Memory tracker records app names, window titles and URLs, and never keystrokes, screenshots or audio. ScreenJournal stores no footage either, but it does read the work itself: the screen is recorded as short-lived video, the work is read from it, and the video is deleted immediately during processing.

Can managers see everything Timely tracks?

No, by design. Each person's tracked memory is private to them; colleagues and managers see only the time entries the person logs to their timesheet. ScreenJournal takes a different position: the timeline is visible to the employee and their manager alike, employees can redact entries entirely before anyone sees them, and scores are contestable.

How do Timely's AI timesheets differ from ScreenJournal's?

Timely drafts time entries from app and website metadata plus calendar and tool integrations, for each person to approve. ScreenJournal prepares timesheets from the work itself, read from the screen, with per-line source badges and a to-verify count, and the same record also produces team reports, a searchable history and plain-English answers.

Is Timely a surveillance tool?

No. Timely markets and documents itself as anti-surveillance, and its capture is metadata-only with a private per-person timeline. ScreenJournal reads more, the work itself, and pairs that with privacy engineering: personal activity skipped in real time, PII removed, employee redaction, and deletion of the raw screen data immediately during processing. They are different capture depths, not a like-for-like privacy comparison.

Two ways to end timesheets

Timely deserves its reputation: it made automatic, dignified time tracking real for firms that would never tolerate surveillance, and its private-memory model is a principled piece of design. ScreenJournal ends timesheets a different way, by reading the work itself, sharing one truthful timeline between employee and manager, and deleting the raw screen data. If metadata and self-logging fit your firm, Timely will serve it well. If the team needs one record that answers for the work, that is what ScreenJournal is for. For the wider market view, see ScreenJournal vs the alternatives.