Software selection is one of the few decisions in a medical aesthetic practice that touches every part of the business at once. It determines how long a provider spends charting after each patient, whether a membership renews without staff intervention, how much of your card revenue goes to processing, and whether you can tell in March why February was slower than January.
It is also a decision most owners make with poor information. Vendors publish feature lists rather than pricing, demos are conducted by people trained to demo, and the practices whose opinions matter most are too busy to write reviews. The category has no independent standard for what a med spa platform should do.
Medical spas also have requirements that general salon and spa software was never designed for. Clinical workflows produce records that must persist and be auditable. Consent has to be captured for specific products and procedures and retained with version history. Treatment records need units and lot numbers. Before-and-after photography has to be consistent enough to compare over months. Memberships behave like a subscription business. Injectable inventory behaves like pharmacy stock. Patient retention runs on treatment intervals rather than on marketing calendars.
This guide compares the platforms most frequently shortlisted by med spas and aesthetic practices in 2026. Where a vendor publishes a capability or price, we say so. Where it does not, the entry reads "Not listed" rather than carrying a guess. We think a ranking that is honest about its gaps is more useful than one that is complete and partly invented.
Order reflects how frequently each platform is shortlisted by practices in our research and how well documented it is, not a scored ranking. Scored ratings publish as each evaluation completes.
Med spa software comparison
Capability columns reflect what each vendor documents publicly rather than marketing claims. Pricing shows "Contact vendor" where the vendor does not publish figures we can confirm.
Med spa software comparison by capability and pricing
"Not listed" means the vendor does not publish that detail. We do not mark a feature as available on the basis of marketing material alone.
The platforms, reviewed
1
Aesthetic Record
Best for: Injector-led practices that lead with clinical documentation
Frequently shortlisted by injector-led practices that want charting, consents and photography treated as first-class features rather than add-ons. Capability details vary by plan.
Product screenshot pending vendor approval
Screenshots are published once supplied or captured during a recorded demonstration of Aesthetic Record.
Overview
Aesthetic Record is marketed to medical aesthetic practices rather than to salons, which is the first meaningful filter for most med spa buyers. Practices typically evaluate it when charting quality, consent capture and treatment photography matter as much as the appointment book. Our evaluation of the specific feature depth, plan boundaries and pricing is in progress; we publish findings only after they are confirmed against vendor documentation or a recorded demonstration.
Key features
— Clinical charting for aesthetic services
— Consent form capture
— Before-and-after photography workflow
— Appointment scheduling
— Inventory and package tracking
— Patient communication tools
Pricing
Pricing: Contact vendor. Published pricing was not available at the time of review. Request a written quote that separates subscription cost, payment processing, SMS and implementation fees.
Strengths
Purpose-built for medical aesthetics rather than adapted from salon software
Clinical documentation is central to the product rather than an add-on module
Commonly shortlisted by injector-led practices, which makes peer references easy to find
Limitations
Published pricing is limited, so quotes must be requested and compared line by line
Breadth of features can mean a longer configuration period before go-live
Feature availability by plan tier varies by plan
Who it's best for
Single-site and small-group aesthetic practices where providers chart every visit and the owner wants clinical records, consents and photos in one system.
Who should consider alternatives
Practices whose revenue is mostly retail or non-clinical services, and large groups with complex inter-location reporting requirements, should compare against platforms built around those workflows.
Best for: Practices prioritising the patient-facing booking experience
Usually evaluated by practices that treat the booking and checkout experience as a brand asset. Clinical depth relative to dedicated EMR platforms varies by plan.
Product screenshot pending vendor approval
Screenshots are published once supplied or captured during a recorded demonstration of Boulevard.
Overview
Boulevard is most often shortlisted where the owner cares about how booking, intake and checkout feel to the patient. The relevant question for a medical practice is how far its clinical documentation extends and whether charting needs are met natively or through an integration. That boundary is the key question to settle in a demo.
Key features
— Online booking
— Front-desk and checkout workflow
— Client profiles and history
— Memberships and packages
— Integrated payments
— Reporting dashboards
Pricing
Pricing: Contact vendor. Published pricing was not available at the time of review. Request a written quote that separates subscription cost, payment processing, SMS and implementation fees.
Strengths
Strong reputation for booking and checkout usability
Membership and package handling is a common reason practices shortlist it
Well suited to teams where the front desk is the operational hub
Limitations
Clinical documentation depth for medical services needs to be confirmed against your charting requirements
Pricing is quote-based
Plan boundaries vary by plan
Who it's best for
Aesthetic practices with a strong retail and membership component where front-desk flow and patient experience drive rebooking.
Who should consider alternatives
Practices that need deep medical charting as the primary workflow should confirm clinical capability in a demo before committing.
Best for: Teams where fast staff adoption matters most
Often shortlisted when staff adoption is the main risk in a software change. Medical charting scope varies by plan.
Product screenshot pending vendor approval
Screenshots are published once supplied or captured during a recorded demonstration of Mangomint.
Overview
Mangomint tends to appear on shortlists after a practice has failed to get staff to adopt a heavier system. The evaluation question is whether its operational clarity holds once medical charting, consents and injectable inventory are added to the workflow.
Key features
— Appointment management
— Point of sale
— Client records
— Automated messaging
— Staff management
— Reporting
Pricing
Pricing: Contact vendor. Published pricing was not available at the time of review. Request a written quote that separates subscription cost, payment processing, SMS and implementation fees.
Strengths
Interface clarity is consistently cited by practices as a reason for choosing it
Lower training burden when onboarding new front-desk staff
Operational workflows are well organised for daily use
Limitations
Medical charting and consent depth must be validated against your clinical requirements
Pricing is not fully published
Feature scope for multi-location groups varies by plan
Who it's best for
Small and mid-sized practices replacing a system staff avoid using, where simplicity is worth more than exhaustive configurability.
Who should consider alternatives
Multi-location groups with complex clinical reporting should test reporting depth carefully before deciding.
Best for: Multi-location and enterprise aesthetic groups
Almost always evaluated by groups above roughly five locations where centralised reporting and standardisation matter more than setup speed.
Product screenshot pending vendor approval
Screenshots are published once supplied or captured during a recorded demonstration of Zenoti.
Overview
Zenoti is positioned at the enterprise end of the market. Groups evaluate it for centralised configuration, cross-location reporting and standardised operations. Smaller single-site practices frequently find enterprise platforms heavier than their operation requires, which is a fit question rather than a quality judgement.
Key features
— Multi-location management
— Centralised reporting
— Memberships and packages
— Marketing automation
— Inventory management
— Employee and payroll tooling
Pricing
Pricing: Contact vendor. Published pricing was not available at the time of review. Request a written quote that separates subscription cost, payment processing, SMS and implementation fees.
Strengths
Built around multi-location operations rather than adapted to them
Best for: Practices focused on lead conversion and patient acquisition
Typically shortlisted by practices that treat lead follow-up and conversion as a core workflow alongside clinical records.
Product screenshot pending vendor approval
Screenshots are published once supplied or captured during a recorded demonstration of PatientNow.
Overview
PatientNow is usually evaluated where consultations and lead follow-up are a measurable part of the business. The evaluation question is how well its acquisition tooling is integrated with the clinical chart rather than sitting beside it.
Key features
— Patient records for elective practices
— Lead capture and follow-up
— Consultation workflow
— Before-and-after imaging
— Marketing automation
— Reporting
Pricing
Pricing: Contact vendor. Published pricing was not available at the time of review. Request a written quote that separates subscription cost, payment processing, SMS and implementation fees.
Strengths
Acquisition and conversion workflows are treated as core rather than optional
Designed around elective medical practices rather than general wellness
Consultation-heavy workflows are well represented
Limitations
Broader footprint can mean a longer implementation
Pricing is quote-based
Module boundaries vary by plan
Who it's best for
Elective and aesthetic practices running paid acquisition, where the gap between enquiry and booked consultation is an operational problem.
Who should consider alternatives
Practices with a full patient base and no acquisition problem may be paying for capability they will not use.
Best for: Cost-sensitive practices that still need clinical records
Frequently shortlisted by cost-sensitive practices that still need medical record functionality. Plan boundaries vary by plan.
Product screenshot pending vendor approval
Screenshots are published once supplied or captured during a recorded demonstration of AestheticsPro.
Overview
AestheticsPro has served the medical spa segment for a long period, and appears most often on shortlists where budget is a hard constraint but clinical documentation is non-negotiable. Interface age is a common discussion point in demos; whether that matters depends on your team.
Key features
— Medical record keeping
— Scheduling
— Point of sale
— Marketing tools
— Employee management
— Reporting
Pricing
Pricing: Contact vendor. Published pricing was not available at the time of review. Request a written quote that separates subscription cost, payment processing, SMS and implementation fees.
Strengths
Long track record in the medical spa segment specifically
Wide functional coverage in a single system
Commonly evaluated as a value option
Limitations
Interface modernity is a recurring theme in buyer feedback
Feature availability differs by tier by plan
Configuration can require vendor assistance
Who it's best for
Established single-site med spas with predictable workflows and a defined software budget.
Who should consider alternatives
Practices where a modern interface drives staff adoption should test the product with front-desk staff before signing.
Best for: Wellness-led practices with light clinical requirements
Broadly adopted and widely priced-published in its general market. Medical-specific capability for aesthetic practices varies by plan.
Product screenshot pending vendor approval
Screenshots are published once supplied or captured during a recorded demonstration of Vagaro.
Overview
Vagaro's scale is in general wellness rather than medical aesthetics. Practices evaluating it should be explicit about how much clinical documentation they need, because that is the boundary where general wellness platforms and medical platforms diverge.
Key features
— Online booking and marketplace listing
— Point of sale
— Client records
— Memberships and packages
— Marketing tools
— Payroll and staff tools
Pricing
Pricing: Contact vendor. Published pricing was not available at the time of review. Request a written quote that separates subscription cost, payment processing, SMS and implementation fees.
Strengths
Large installed base and extensive documentation
Booking and payments workflows are mature
Broad third-party familiarity makes hiring trained staff easier
Limitations
Built for a broader wellness market than medical aesthetics
Clinical documentation fit should be confirmed for medical services
Add-on structure can complicate true monthly cost
Who it's best for
Practices with a large non-medical service mix, or new practices starting with light clinical requirements.
Who should consider alternatives
Injector-led practices with substantial charting, consent and lot-tracking requirements should compare against medical-first platforms.
Best for: Clinics that want configurable forms and patient comms in one place
Shortlisted by clinics that want configurable forms and communication workflows in one system. Feature depth by plan varies by plan.
Product screenshot pending vendor approval
Screenshots are published once supplied or captured during a recorded demonstration of Pabau.
Overview
Pabau appears most often on shortlists from cosmetic and aesthetic clinics looking for configurable medical forms alongside scheduling and communication. Configurability is usually its selling point and also its implementation cost: flexible systems need decisions made before go-live.
Key features
— Customisable medical forms
— Scheduling
— Patient communication
— Before-and-after photos
— Invoicing
— Reporting
Pricing
Pricing: Contact vendor. Published pricing was not available at the time of review. Request a written quote that separates subscription cost, payment processing, SMS and implementation fees.
Strengths
Form and template configurability suits unusual documentation requirements
Communication workflows are well represented
Used across a range of clinic types, not only med spas
Limitations
Configurability increases setup time
Pricing and plan boundaries vary by plan
Requires a clear internal owner during implementation
Who it's best for
Clinics with specific documentation requirements that do not fit a fixed template set.
Who should consider alternatives
Owners who want an opinionated system with minimal configuration may prefer a more prescriptive platform.
Best for: Plastic surgery and hybrid surgical-aesthetic practices
Typically evaluated by surgical and hybrid practices where providers work from mobile devices between rooms.
Product screenshot pending vendor approval
Screenshots are published once supplied or captured during a recorded demonstration of Symplast.
Overview
Symplast is positioned toward plastic surgery and aesthetic practices with a mobile-first workflow. The relevant evaluation questions are how complete the mobile experience is for providers and how surgical workflows coexist with non-surgical service lines.
Key features
— Mobile provider workflow
— Clinical charting
— Photo management
— Patient portal
— Billing
— Reporting
Pricing
Pricing: Contact vendor. Published pricing was not available at the time of review. Request a written quote that separates subscription cost, payment processing, SMS and implementation fees.
Strengths
Mobile workflow is a stated design priority rather than an afterthought
Serves surgical and non-surgical service lines in one record
Photo management is central to the product
Limitations
Positioning skews surgical, which may exceed a med spa's needs
Pricing is quote-based
Capability details vary by plan
Who it's best for
Surgical practices with an aesthetic service line, and providers who chart on a tablet rather than at a desk.
Who should consider alternatives
Non-surgical med spas with simple service menus may find a lighter platform sufficient.
Evaluated mainly by solo injectors and very small teams where simplicity and cost outweigh clinical depth.
Product screenshot pending vendor approval
Screenshots are published once supplied or captured during a recorded demonstration of GlossGenius.
Overview
GlossGenius targets independent providers rather than medical groups. For a solo injector opening a first location it can be enough to start; the question is how quickly clinical documentation requirements outgrow it.
Key features
— Booking and calendar
— Payments
— Client records
— Basic marketing
— Website tools
— Reporting basics
Pricing
Pricing: Contact vendor. Published pricing was not available at the time of review. Request a written quote that separates subscription cost, payment processing, SMS and implementation fees.
Strengths
Fast to set up for an independent provider
Simple, predictable interface
Low operational overhead
Limitations
Not designed around medical documentation requirements
Limited fit for multi-provider clinical operations
Clinical and compliance capability varies by plan
Who it's best for
Solo providers and two-person teams who need booking, payments and a client record without a long implementation.
Who should consider alternatives
Any practice with multiple providers charting medical services should compare against medical-first platforms.
Our evaluations are built from vendor documentation, published pricing, product demonstrations where a vendor provides one, publicly available user reviews and interviews with practice operators. We do not state that a platform has been used in a live practice by our team unless that testing has actually taken place and is recorded against the entry.
Where a vendor does not publish a detail, we say so rather than estimating it. Sponsored placements and affiliate relationships never affect ranking order or scoring; where they exist, they are labelled on the page.
Clinical & EMR Capabilities
Template quality for aesthetic services, consent capture attached to the visit, injectable units and lot numbers, photography inside the charting flow, and audit history.
Scheduling & Patient Experience
Provider-specific durations, device and room conflicts, deposit rules, waitlist automation, online booking behaviour and reminder configurability.
CRM & Patient Retention
Treatment-interval recall, segmentation depth, consultation pipeline, and reporting on rebooking and lapsed patients.
Marketing
Campaign tooling, review generation and whether campaign reporting ties back to booked appointments and revenue.
Payments & Memberships
Checkout speed, card on file, deposits, tipping, recurring membership billing, retry logic and credit handling.
Inventory
Unit-level injectable tracking, lot and expiry capture, waste logging, par levels and retail stock.
Reporting & Analytics
Provider productivity, service mix, retail attachment, rebooking rate, membership revenue, export and scheduling of reports.
Integrations
Documented integrations and whether an open API is available to customers rather than only to partners.
Ease of Use
Number of steps to complete core tasks, clarity for new front-desk staff, and how the product behaves on a tablet.
Customer Support
Support hours and channels, implementation model, and whether support is separately priced.
Pricing & Value
Transparency of published pricing, structure of the quote, and total cost over two years including processing and messaging.
Security & Compliance Features
Role-based permissions, audit logging, encryption practices, sub-processors, business associate agreement availability and data return on termination.
The practices that choose well tend to do the same three things. They write down their workflows before they look at products. They put the people who will use the system daily in the second demo. And they price the whole contract rather than the monthly fee.
Below are the decision inputs that most often change the answer. Work through them in order, and treat anything you cannot answer as a question for the vendor rather than an assumption.
Practice size and providers
Per-provider pricing and permission models scale differently. Establish your provider count at twelve and twenty-four months, not today, and price against that.
Locations
Multi-location requirements are about control rather than features: centralised service menus, consolidated reporting, shared patient records and permission granularity for regional roles.
Clinical documentation
Define what your providers must chart, including units and lot numbers, then evaluate templates against that list rather than against a generic EMR checklist.
Booking and patient intake
Decide which services can be booked online without a consultation, what deposit applies, and whether intake must be completed before arrival.
Photography and consent
Confirm capture consistency, tagging to treatments, comparison views, and separate handling of treatment consent and marketing consent.
Payments and memberships
Processing rates, card on file, deposits and recurring billing behaviour. These have the largest financial impact and the highest switching cost.
Inventory
Unit-level tracking that deducts at the point of charting, with lot and expiry capture and waste recorded as its own category.
Marketing, CRM and reporting
Judge these on attribution and recall automation rather than on template libraries and dashboard design.
Integrations and migration
Document what must integrate, and get the export and import specification in writing before agreeing a migration date.
Support and pricing
Ask for the support model and the full quote in writing, including implementation, migration, messaging and renewal escalation.
Med spa software pricing
Quotes in this category are assembled from components rather than presented as a single price. Ask every vendor to break their proposal into the following lines, then build a two-year total using your own transaction and messaging volume.
Monthly subscription
A tiered platform fee, usually billed monthly or annually, with feature sets differing by tier.
Per-provider pricing
A charge for each provider or user. Manageable at two providers; material at eight.
Per-location pricing
A charge for each site, sometimes with a group platform fee on top.
Payment processing
A percentage plus a fixed amount per transaction. Frequently the largest single line for a busy practice.
SMS and messaging fees
Charged per message or in bundles. Model this at realistic reminder and campaign volume.
Marketing add-ons
Campaign and automation modules priced separately from the core platform.
EMR add-ons
Clinical modules sold above the base tier in some platforms.
Implementation fees
One-time configuration and training charges, sometimes scaled by provider or location count.
Data migration fees
Charged for importing patient records, appointments and clinical documents from a previous system.
