By Marcus ReyesReviewed by Priya Anand, RNUpdated March 8, 2026
Multi-location groups fail with software for different reasons than single sites. The problems are configuration drift between locations, reporting that cannot be consolidated, patient records that do not follow the patient, and permission models that cannot express a regional manager.
Feature parity matters far less than control. A platform that lets head office define the service menu, pricing and protocols once, and push them everywhere, prevents the slow divergence that makes group reporting meaningless.
This page evaluates platforms on group control, not on single-site usability.
What to look for
Centralised configuration
Service menus, pricing, templates and protocols should be defined centrally with controlled local variation. Without it, each location becomes its own system within a year.
Consolidated reporting
Confirm you can compare locations on the same metrics in one report, and that provider productivity is comparable across sites.
Patient records across locations
A patient treated at two sites should have one record, with clinical history visible at both. Ask specifically how duplicates are prevented and merged.
Inventory across sites
Stock transfers between locations, par levels per site and consolidated purchasing are the difference between group inventory and several independent spreadsheets.
Permission granularity
Regional managers, location managers and providers need distinct permission sets. Confirm the model supports your actual org chart.
Comparison table
Med spa software comparison by capability and pricing
Clinics that want configurable forms and patient comms in one place
Contact vendor
Not listed
Not listed
Not listed
Not listed
Not listed
Not listed
Scroll the table horizontally →
"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.
Recommended platforms
1
Zenoti
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
Groups that have not agreed a standard service menu and pricing model will encode their inconsistency into whatever platform they buy. Do the operational work first.
Pilot in two locations
Run a pilot across two sites, ideally one strong and one struggling, before a group-wide rollout. Group rollouts that skip the pilot generate their own migration project a year later.
