ezyVet vs Shepherd for Clinics, 2027: Pick the Right Fit

The short answer for a small clinic

The category decision comes first. Both products are cloud practice information management systems (PIMS), the software that runs appointments, medical records, invoicing and inventory for a clinic from one place, so you are choosing between two core systems rather than a system and an add-on. The real choice turns on three things: whether you can read a price without a sales call, what the one-time setup costs, and whether you can export your records and invoices later.

IDEXX acquired ezyVet on June 2, 2021 according to IDEXX (2021). A June 7, 2021 trade-press write-up did not state a price for the deal, according to dvm360 (2021). The ezyVet pricing page still refers to IDEXX support and diagnostics, so the ownership shows up in the product as well as in the press release. Shepherd's site names Shepherd Veterinary Solutions, LLC as the copyright holder, and its pricing page says Shepherd, like its Pet Assure network, "is part of Synergy Pet Group." We could not confirm that corporate link from independent sources, so ask each vendor to name the legal owner in the order form. Neither product has been renamed or merged in the sources we checked; the ezyVet change is an acquisition, not a new name.

TL;DR: Choose ezyVet if IDEXX ties matter to you and you can get a written per-doctor price. Choose Shepherd if you want published per-doctor list prices and can budget a one-time migration fee and a delayed first bill. Either way, get the data-export terms in writing before you sign.

Key Takeaways

• ezyVet's public pricing gives one starting point and no tier table, so its number is not comparable until you have a written three-doctor quote.

• Shepherd's public pricing lists per-doctor tiers, unlimited users and a one-time migration fee, which makes it easier to budget on paper.

• Shepherd's billing starts after a delay that follows onboarding, so your first bill arrives well after your first login.

• We did not find a published QuickBooks or Xero connector for either product; treat that as not published until the vendor confirms it in writing.

• Aggregator prices disagree with each other and with the vendors' own pages, so use the vendor page as the baseline.

• An automation layer can route invoices and exceptions for review, but it cannot fix a system that will not export your data.

How we evaluated these two tools

We scored the two products on seven criteria that a small clinic actually decides on. The weights below are our judgment about how much each factor moves year-one cost and how hard it is to leave; they are analysis, not vendor facts or ratings. We did not run either product or start a trial. Each factual claim comes from a vendor page or an independent source we could open during this research, and where a page was blocked or silent we write "not published" rather than estimate.

Integrations carry 20% because the accounting and diagnostics link decides how much re-keying happens every week. Year-one cost carries 25%, the largest share, because a monthly figure that leaves out setup and migration misleads buyers more often than a missing feature does.

What each product publishes, side by side

This matrix reports what each vendor's public pages say, not what the software can do in your clinic. "Not published" means the page we opened does not state it. It is a question to put to the vendor, not a finding that the feature is absent.

Two rows matter most. ezyVet's pricing page describes one plan with all features regardless of practice size, which simplifies the product choice but leaves the per-doctor cost unknown. Shepherd's page prices by doctor and states unlimited users, which makes its subscription easier to model but puts the migration fee and billing start on your list of questions.

What each vendor charges, and what is still quote-based

ezyVet's pricing page gives a single starting point, "as little as" a monthly figure, and says enterprise pricing for corporate groups is available on request. Shepherd's page publishes list prices by doctor count at a single location, a discount for paying through Shepherd Pay, separate schedules for multi-location groups, nonprofits and teaching hospitals, and custom pricing for enterprise groups. The table below separates the published figures from the items that are quote-based.

Pricing checked October 19, 2026.

Third-party aggregators show different and sometimes older figures. One aggregator lists a lower single-vet price than Shepherd's own page, so we used the official page and treated the aggregator only as a cross-check. We do not use the aggregator's median annual spend figure for Shepherd, because it cannot be reconciled with Shepherd's own one-doctor list price. The same aggregator's Covetrus Pulse vs Shepherd comparison page also shows a one-year initial term, a minimum monthly license and a 14-day cancellation notice. We could not confirm that those terms apply to Shepherd, and they conflict with Shepherd's published one-doctor tier, so we do not rely on them. The aggregator also lists a migration fee that differs from Shepherd's own page, which is one more reason to read the order form rather than a summary.

ezyVet: best fit, limits and implementation

ezyVet fits a clinic that already buys IDEXX diagnostics, wants IDEXX-backed support, and needs a cloud PIMS with a published starting figure. Its pricing page lists clinical records, inventory, invoicing, reporting, diagnostic ordering and client communications, along with regular updates and unlimited support. ezyVet integrations: 100+ veterinary software solutions according to ezyVet (2026). That is the most specific integration claim on either public page we read, and it still needs a check against the connectors you actually use.

The limits are clear. The public pages do not show per-doctor pricing, a trial, or the terms behind the FAQ headings on contract terms, training costs and data conversion; the headings are there, but the text we could read did not include the answers. The page routes you to a demo request and a custom quote instead. For a buyer who wants to compare on paper before a sales call, that is the largest gap in the public material.

For implementation, plan for a data-conversion scope and a training scope in writing before you accept any number. ezyVet's public developer portal documents token endpoints that take a client ID and client secret, and it describes invoice and animal objects, so an integrator has a starting point. Whether your plan includes API access is a separate question, and the answer should come from ezyVet in writing. Primary evidence for this profile: the ezyVet pricing page and the IDEXX acquisition release.

Shepherd: best fit, limits and implementation

Shepherd fits a clinic that wants a published price for each doctor, unlimited users, built-in payment processing and AI tools for documentation. Its official page describes TranscribeAI as transcription that logs to the record and can create discharge instructions, and it lists automated reminders, a pet parent portal, inventory and wellness plans. The pricing page also says the subscription includes onboarding and support, with no setup or onboarding fees.

The limits are the one-time data migration fee, which the official page prices separately from the subscription, and the billing start, which follows onboarding and is covered in the worked example below. The page describes payment processing and reminders, but it does not name an accounting connector, a diagnostics integration or a data-export guarantee. We found no public Shepherd API documentation in our checks.

For implementation, onboarding is included, so the real work sits in your data migration and your staff's training time. Shepherd's pages list SOC 2 and TX-RAMP certifications; ask for the current reports, since a badge on a pricing page does not show scope. The corporate link to Synergy Pet Group noted in the first section belongs on the same order-form checklist. Primary evidence for this profile: Shepherd's pricing page.

Who this is for

• Choose ezyVet if you already buy IDEXX diagnostics, you want IDEXX-backed support, and you can get a written per-doctor price and data-conversion scope before you sign.

• Choose Shepherd if you want per-doctor list prices, unlimited users and a payments discount, and you can accept a one-time migration fee and a delayed first bill.

• Choose neither yet if the vendor will not state an export format for your invoices, client records and medical records in writing.

Red flags: a quote that leaves out migration or training, no written answer on data export, and a minimum term you cannot match to your cash flow.

A worked year-one example for a three-doctor clinic

Take a hypothetical three-doctor clinic that chases 40 overdue invoices a month by hand, at about 6 minutes each, which is 4 hours of follow-up. Suppose the practice exports open invoices each morning, keyed by id and date_due, two fields that ezyVet's public developer documentation lists on its invoice object, and an automated draft prepares the reminder text for every invoice. A staff member then reviews only the 10 with a dispute flag or payment plan, which is 1 hour a month. The invoice hours above are a separate staff-time estimate and are not netted against the subscription cost. For the subscription side, Shepherd's list price for three doctors is $547 a month, or $497 with Shepherd Pay, and its one-time migration fee is $2,475, according to Shepherd (2026); the same page says single-location billing starts 12 weeks after onboarding. Because billing starts 12 weeks after onboarding, a first year counted from onboarding has about 40 billed weeks out of 52, so the subscription is roughly 12 × $547 = $6,564, times 40/52, or about $5,049, and the $2,475 migration fee sits on top for a first-year total of about $7,524 before any Shepherd Pay discount. ezyVet's starting figure cannot be annualized for three doctors until ezyVet confirms whether it covers one user or the whole practice.

Where a proposed workflow would sit

Two proposed workflows show where an automation layer would sit. Neither is a deployment, and US Tech Automations would configure either one only after the prerequisites below are confirmed in writing.

The first is overdue-invoice follow-up. The trigger is a scheduled read of open invoices, either an API call where the PIMS allows one or a daily export file. The action groups those invoices by client, drafts a reminder that carries the invoice amount and invoice number, and holds back any invoice with a dispute flag. The output is a review queue rather than a sent message, so a staff member approves or edits each draft before it reaches the client. The prerequisites are invoice and client export access, a confirmed plan that includes API access if you want the read to be live, and a named owner for the queue. The human review points are dispute flags and any client who has asked not to be contacted by text.

The second is month-end reconciliation. The trigger is the first business day of the month. The action matches paid invoices from the PIMS against the ledger in QuickBooks Online or Xero, using invoice number and total. The output is an exception list showing each mismatch and its difference. Bookkeeping staff review every exception before any journal entry is posted, and nothing posts automatically. The prerequisites are the same export access plus accounting-platform credentials. We did not find a published accounting connector for either vendor, so this design depends on exports until a vendor confirms a connector in writing.

US Tech Automations would also configure a run log, retry limits and an escalation path to the bookkeeper when a run fails. Those are settings the buyer should confirm before any go-live date is set, and they are not evidence that the design has already run for any clinic.

Building the same steps yourself in Zapier, Make or n8n

A clinic can stitch the same steps together in Zapier, Make or n8n, and for a small clinic with a technically capable owner that is a fair option. When configured, those tools can keep run histories, retry failed steps, branch on errors and store audit evidence. The buyer still has to design and own the parts that break in clinics: idempotency, so a retried run does not send a second reminder; access controls for client data; an escalation path when a field changes; and maintenance after either PIMS updates its export. A proposed US Tech Automations design would configure those controls up front, including an approval step before any client-facing message and a run log for each batch. The prerequisites are the same export or API access described above, and the review points stay with your staff.

Decision checklist before you sign

• Ask each vendor for a three-doctor, 12-month quote with setup, migration and training as separate lines.

• Ask ezyVet whether its starting figure covers one user or the whole practice.

• Get the export format and a sample file for invoices, client records and medical records.

• Confirm whether an accounting connector exists, and for which plan.

• Confirm Shepherd's legal owner and whether the Synergy Pet Group link applies to your contract.

• Read the minimum term, notice period and billing start in the order form, not in a summary.

• Ask for the current security reports behind any certification named on a pricing page.

Common mistakes to avoid

• Comparing one vendor's starting figure with another vendor's per-doctor list price as if they cover the same scope.

• Treating aggregator prices as current when they disagree with each other and with the official pages.

• Leaving migration and training out of the year-one cost.

• Assuming a system with an accounting menu item has a live connector.

• Postponing the export question until the day you decide to leave.

When NOT to use US Tech Automations

An automation layer is the wrong choice for a clinic with one doctor and a light invoice load, because the PIMS's own reminders and a short weekly manual review may take less effort than any setup. It is also the wrong choice if the PIMS will not give you any export or API access, because the layer would have nothing reliable to read. And if your finance team already runs a working month-end close in QuickBooks Online or Xero without exception routing, a simpler spreadsheet check or the accounting package's own reconciliation will likely serve you better.

Frequently asked questions

Which one is cheaper for a small clinic?

Neither answer is reliable yet, because ezyVet's starting figure has no stated per-doctor basis and Shepherd's list price comes with a separate one-time migration fee. Ask both vendors for a three-doctor, 12-month quote with setup included.

Does either product connect to QuickBooks or Xero?

We did not find a published QuickBooks or Xero connector for either product in our checks, so treat that as not published and get it confirmed in writing before you plan around it.

Is there a free trial?

Neither pricing page we opened mentions a free trial. ezyVet's page offers a demo request and a custom quote instead, and Shepherd's page does not describe a trial.

Can I take my records with me if I leave?

Ask for the export format and a sample file before you sign, because neither public page we read describes an export guarantee.

Do I need a developer to connect either system to other tools?

Yes for most setups. ezyVet's public developer portal uses token endpoints that take a client ID and client secret, so a developer will be needed, and Shepherd's public pages show no API documentation, so ask for it before you plan any integration.

Next step before you request quotes

Start by getting the same three written answers from both vendors: a three-doctor year-one quote with every one-time fee listed, the migration scope, and the export format. Once you have them, the two products can be compared on the same basis instead of on a homepage price. If you are also choosing accounting or billing tools, read ezyVet to Xero for veterinary clinics, billing and invoicing software for veterinary clinics and ezyVet against Cornerstone for veterinary clinics. For a concrete picture of how the overdue-invoice design would be set up, see how US Tech Automations configures this.