Key takeaways
- FET is free, open-source desktop timetabling software with a powerful constraint engine; Smootables starts from a hosted cloud planning model instead of a local install.
- FET runs offline on Windows, macOS, and Linux and generates fully automatically; Smootables holds academic years, periods, courses, and pathways in a shared cloud plan, with teacher workload visible to the whole team before generation.
- FET's recursive-swapping algorithm resolves constraints during the generation run itself, with no undo if the result needs rework; Smootables runs 13 validation checks and produces typed infeasibility reports before a generation attempt starts.
- FET costs nothing to keep running in parallel; pilot Smootables against it for one term before switching anything published.
Who should consider a FET alternative?
If your school uses FET (Free Timetabling Software), or you are weighing it against the cloud tools in the best school timetable software 2026 roundup, this page is for you. FET is free and open-source software licensed under the GNU Affero General Public License v3, and it runs as a cross-platform desktop application on Windows, macOS, and Linux, plus a command-line version. Its constraint engine is powerful, and independent comparisons rank it highly on value. This is a fair comparison, not a takedown.
The short version: FET is a free, offline generator you install and run yourself. Smootables is school year planning-first, run for you in the cloud. The two differ in where the software runs, how much year and pathway modeling sits in the product before generation, and whether a vendor supports setup and migration.
Where does FET work well, and where do schools that want hosted, planning-first software look elsewhere?
FET is a strong fit for schools and universities that are comfortable installing desktop software and want a free, flexible generator. The columns below show where FET works well and where schools that want hosted planning, validation, and support may prefer the Smootables model.
Where FET works well
Schools, high schools, and universities that want a genuinely free, open-source generator (AGPL v3) with no license cost, running on Windows, macOS, and Linux, and on very modest hardware. FET generates fully automatically with a large catalog of time and space constraints, plus semi-automatic and manual allocation.
FET also offers operating modes for different school systems, including a Terms mode used in Finland, and a scriptable command-line version for generation without a screen. Reviewers who criticise the interface still describe the engine as powerful and flexible.
Where schools that want hosted, planning-first software look elsewhere
FET's official materials describe automatic generation, constraints, and file-based output: no academic-year planning layer, hosted cloud service, or vendor support contract is described anywhere in them. The manual states FET has no undo option and advises saving the dataset regularly, and independent reviews describe a bare, text-oriented interface with a steep initial learning curve, calling the file-based, re-run-to-update workflow clunky once more than one person schedules.
For vocational college timetable software buyers and schools with mixed cohorts, that gap compounds: FET's own materials describe constraints and a generation run, not a year-level plan, so pathways and workload have nowhere to live before the solve starts. Smootables checks that plan first, before generation, with pre-solve validation and branch recovery that a single offline dataset with no undo cannot offer.
How is Smootables different from FET?
FET's product is a single generation run: enter or import your data, let the recursive-swapping algorithm resolve constraints fully automatically, or drive allocation semi-automatically or by hand, then export the result to HTML, XML, or CSV. Smootables starts a step earlier. The planning model holds academic years, terms, periods, courses, modules, pathways, workload, and individual student assignments, and generation (see automatic school timetabling) runs against that model, so validation can catch likely infeasibility before the solve. For a step-by-step creation guide with Smootables workflow at each stage, see how to create a school timetable.
The solver uses CP-SAT with enforced hard constraints (clash-free teacher/room/group scheduling, room capacity and availability, teacher weekly hours, breaks, pinned placements, and lesson dependencies) and 6 weighted soft constraints, 13 pre-generation validation checks, typed infeasibility reports, a waiting area for deferred lessons, and timetable branches for scenario recovery. A built-in AI planner assistant lets planners describe changes in natural language and review bulk updates on the same planning model the solver uses. Where FET's recursive-swapping heuristic runs its generation pass offline, with no undo option and the manual's own advice to save the dataset regularly, the planning model is what a Smootables planner works in directly, before and after generation, with every change kept in a branch instead of an unsaved file.
How does Smootables compare to FET in 2026?
The table contrasts FET and Smootables across cost, deployment, planning depth, validation, editing, pathways, AI, and output. FET is strong as a free, powerful offline generator; Smootables is a hosted, planning-first tool, so several rows reflect where the data lives and how the product is run.
| Dimension | FET | Smootables |
|---|---|---|
| Cost and licensing | Free and open-source under the GNU AGPL v3, with no license cost | Commercial cloud SaaS; self-serve annual licenses are on the pricing page, and serviced work is quoted |
| Deployment | Cross-platform desktop app for Windows, macOS, and Linux, plus a command-line version; runs offline | Cloud SaaS on Microsoft Azure, browser-based, multi-user |
| Year and period planning | Official materials describe generation and constraints, not an academic-year planning layer | First-class part of the model |
| Pre-solve validation | Constraint handling during generation; timetables produced as HTML, XML, and CSV files | 13 validation checks before generation, with typed infeasibility reports |
| Editing and undo | The official manual states there is no undo option and advises saving the dataset regularly | In-app editing with timetable branches for scenario recovery |
| Individual pathways and work-based learning | Large constraint catalog for class-based scheduling; no work-based-learning or individual-pathway model described in official materials | Group, individual, and per-placement exemption support in the core model |
| Automation and AI | Fully automatic generation using a heuristic recursive-swapping algorithm | CP-SAT solver plus a built-in AI planner assistant for in-app actions |
| Publication and export | Timetables exported to HTML, XML, and CSV, viewed in a browser | PDF and Excel export plus read-only teacher views; SIS and calendar integrations are available |
What should schools validate when replacing FET in 2026?
When deciding whether Smootables is the right replacement, these are the scenarios where the hosted, planning-first model usually shows the biggest difference:
- Opening the same plan from more than one browser at once, instead of the single desktop dataset FET's manual says to save regularly because there is no undo to fall back on
- Modeling individual pathways and work-based learning in the same planning model, a layer FET's official materials describe as constraints and a generation run, not year-level planning
- Running pre-generation validation on a known-tight period, instead of relying on FET's recursive-swapping generation pass itself to surface what does not fit
- Comparing scenarios with timetable branches, instead of re-running FET and regenerating the HTML and CSV output reviewers call clunky to keep current for more than one scheduler
- Getting vendor support for setup and data migration, instead of the community documentation and volunteer maintainers FET runs on
What is the migration path from FET?
Moving off FET is a parallel run, not a big-bang switch: keep FET generating timetables from its current dataset while Smootables validates the same data underneath it. Compare manual timetabling alternatives if you are also evaluating spreadsheet workflows. FET's own HTML, XML, and CSV export is the starting point below; the steps run that export into Smootables, validate it, and hold one term in parallel before anything published changes.
- Export your current data from FET (its timetables and data files support CSV and XML).
- Import the model into Smootables using structured import with column mapping, or AI-assisted extraction for older exports.
- Validate the model in Smootables. Pre-solve validation will surface mismatches that are easier to resolve before scheduling.
- Run one term in parallel. Keep FET as the published source of truth while you verify the Smootables result.
- Switch publication for one scope (campus, program, or term) once the parallel run looks correct.
- Roll out to the rest of the school in subsequent cycles. We support piloting and data migration so testing Smootables is fast and practical.
Questions schools ask when comparing FET and Smootables
Is Smootables a direct replacement for FET?
It can be for planning, generation, editing, and export. FET is a free desktop generator with a powerful constraint engine. Smootables is a hosted cloud tool that adds year planning, workload, pathways, and pre-solve validation, with vendor support for setup and migration. Many schools move when they outgrow a single desktop file or want validation before the solve.
FET is free. How does Smootables justify a cost?
FET has no license cost, which is a real advantage. The comparison that usually matters is planner hours saved across setup, validation, and regeneration, plus hosted multi-user access and vendor support. Evaluate both on your own data and count the time each one takes end to end.
We run FET on Linux and like that it is offline. Do we lose that with Smootables?
Smootables is cloud SaaS, so it runs in a browser rather than offline on your own machine. You gain hosted multi-user access, backups, and validation before generation. If offline desktop operation is a hard requirement, FET remains a fit for that specific need.
FET has no undo. Does Smootables handle changes differently?
Yes. FET's manual states it has no undo option and advises saving the dataset regularly. Smootables supports in-app editing and timetable branches, so you can compare scenarios and recover a previous version instead of re-running a file.
FET's constraint engine is powerful. Why switch?
The engine is not the reason to switch, and reviewers who criticise the interface still call it powerful and flexible. What Smootables adds sits around it: access from more than one browser at once instead of one saved dataset, pre-solve validation instead of reading a finished HTML or CSV export for what did not fit, and vendor support for setup and migration instead of the community documentation and volunteer maintainers FET runs on.
FET has a command-line version that runs without a screen. Does Smootables offer anything similar?
No. Smootables runs in the browser as a hosted service, so there is no local scriptable binary to call from a script or a scheduled job. If unattended, scheduled regeneration is part of your workflow, describe it during a pilot so we can confirm the right fit before you commit.