Specialty Veterinary Software: 4 Steps to Choose in 2027

Specialty veterinary software starts with one category decision

Specialty veterinary software is a practice management system whose scheduling, referral intake, diagnostic handoffs and billing are set up for specialty, referral and emergency hospitals rather than routine wellness visits. The category decision comes first: buy one cloud system that already runs referrals, diagnostics and invoicing, then add automation on top, instead of buying a stand-alone referral tool and stitching it to an older system.

We compare six products that we could confirm are sold today and whose vendor sites we opened: ezyVet, Provet Cloud, Shepherd, IDEXX Neo, Cornerstone and Covetrus Pulse. Vetspire is also sold, but this guide covers six products, so it is not in the matrix.

TL;DR: a single-site specialty hospital that wants published numbers should model ezyVet and Provet's Core plan first. A multi-site referral group should price Provet's Pro plan against an ezyVet corporate quote. Emergency-leaning hospitals should put Shepherd in the demo round, and IDEXX Neo, Cornerstone and Covetrus Pulse should be treated as quote-first purchases.

Key Takeaways

• Choose the practice system before any add-on, and test referral intake, diagnostic results and invoicing during each demo, because those handoffs are where specialty hospitals usually break.

• Only ezyVet and Provet Cloud print prices on the vendor pages we opened. The other four need a written quote that covers add-ons and setup.

• Provet lists its Referral Portal under the Pro tier, not Core, so a Core quote does not include referral intake.

• Instinct's 2026 survey ranks Cornerstone second for both corporate and private practices, but it reports rankings only, with no market shares.

• On Provet's published tiers, four veterinarians cost $546 a month on Core and $686 on Pro before add-ons.

• An automation layer needs a named owner, human approval points and credential rules, or it adds risk instead of saving time.

How we evaluated these tools

We weighted seven criteria and used them to decide which evidence to read first and which products to profile. The weights are not a computed score, and no vendor received a numeric rating from us. Each criterion also sets a minimum evidence bar, so a claim needs that many sources or pages before we rely on it.

Vendor statements come from each vendor's own pages, and we attribute them that way. Independent corroboration is thinner than we would like. We used FrontDesk Review, updated in October 2026, and a 2026 practice-software survey from Instinct, a veterinary software company, so treat that survey as a vendor-run source. Survey base: 463 veterinary professionals according to Instinct (2026). The survey was fielded in March 2026 and reports rankings only, so it shows what practices name, not how much of the market each product holds. We did not find trade-press or association data on specialty hospital software share, so we describe market position in qualitative terms.

Feature matrix: what each vendor's own pages state

The matrix records what the vendor pages we opened say. "Not stated" means the page did not say it. It does not mean the product lacks the feature.

Two cells need caution. The Cornerstone pricing and product pages we tried returned 404 errors, so its column relies on IDEXX's referral announcement and Instinct's ranking, not on a feature list. IDEXX describes rVetLink as "a comprehensive referral management solution for specialty care hospitals" that "greatly streamlines the referral process between primary care and specialty care veterinarians," according to IDEXX (undated). The announcement does not say rVetLink connects to Cornerstone, so ask IDEXX directly.

FrontDesk Review describes ezyVet as best for "Multi-vet general practices and specialty/referral hospitals" and Provet as best for "Multi-site and referral practices," according to FrontDesk Review (2026). Shepherd's site lists General Practice, Urgent Care / ER, Mobile/Hybrid, Multi-Location and Enterprise, and does not name specialty practices.

Pricing pages: what is published and what is quote-based

Pricing checked October 18, 2026. Only two of the six vendors publish figures on the pages we opened, and the rest are quote-based.

Entry price: $260.50 per month according to ezyVet (2026). ezyVet's page says it can be started "for as little as" that amount, offers a custom quote, and offers enterprise pricing for corporate groups on request. The page does not say how many veterinarians the entry price covers, and its FAQ answers on contract terms, training and data conversion were not in the text we opened, so ask for those in writing.

Provet publishes two tiers. Pro tier: $129 per vet per month according to Provet (2026), with a $299 platform fee that includes one vet. Core carries a $249 platform fee that includes one vet, plus $99 per additional vet. Enterprise is listed as custom, with "flexible billing."

Shepherd's pricing URL returned a 404 error in our session, and its home page offers only a demo request, so its row is quote-based. IDEXX's Neo product page shows no price. Covetrus lists Pulse as practice management software, but its pages publish no price or pricing model, and its only action is a demo request.

For the billing side of these purchases, see our best billing and invoicing software guide for veterinary clinics.

Four-vet math on Provet's published tiers

Provet's published Core and Pro figures and its $40 AI Scribe rate, according to Provet (2026), are the inputs for the scenario below.

Take a specialty hospital on one site with four veterinarians, where all four clinicians need AI scribing. On Core, the $249 platform fee covers the first vet, and three additional vets at $99 each add $297, for a $546 monthly subtotal. On Pro, the $299 platform fee plus three vets at $129 each is $686 a month, which is $140 more each month and $1,680 a year. Adding the $40 per-user AI Scribe rate for four clinicians costs $160 more, bringing the totals to $706 on Core and $846 on Pro. Pro is also the only one of these two tiers that includes the Referral Portal, so a referral-heavy hospital is really pricing Pro. Confirm with Provet whether the AI Scribe rate applies per clinician or per licensed user, because the page says only "per user." On ezyVet, the "as little as $260.50 per month" entry price does not state how many veterinarians it covers, so the same calculation needs a quote. If the hospital chooses ezyVet, the diagnostic-result request in its PACS documentation is built around consult_id, animal_id and diagnostic_request_id, and an integrator must map those identifiers before any lab result is posted to a referral.

Taxes, Enterprise terms and implementation fees are outside these figures.

Six vendor profiles

Each profile separates the vendor's stated positioning from our read of it. Quoted vendor text comes from the page named in the profile.

ezyVet

Vendor positioning: ezyVet's pricing page lists "100+ software integrations," IDEXX diagnostic integrations for in-house and reference lab results, and "Unlimited 24/7 support." Our read: among the six, it has the most complete published starting price for a specialty or referral practice that wants lab integration, though the figure is a "from" number.

Best fit: a specialty or referral hospital that wants a published starting price and diagnostics integration, and can accept a quote for multi-site terms.

Limitations: the entry price has no stated vet count. Its PACS documentation lists an IDEXX support address, so ask how that relationship affects your diagnostics roadmap and which reference labs you can connect.

Implementation: the PACS API authenticates with client_id and client_secret, so name the credential holder before any build starts. Compare the platform with Cornerstone in our ezyVet vs Cornerstone guide.

Evidence: ezyVet PACS API documentation and the pricing page cited above.

Provet Cloud

Vendor positioning: Core is "For single site practices to run everything on one platform," and Pro is "For multi-site practices giving quality care across locations," with Referral Portal, multi-location management and a Triage Board. Enterprise adds single sign-on, a service level agreement and custom terms.

Best fit: multi-site referral groups that accept per-vet billing, and single-site practices that want published tiers before a sales call.

Limitations: every added vet raises the monthly bill, and the Referral Portal is in Pro only. The pricing page we opened does not list diagnostic-lab integrations.

Implementation: the page says Core includes fast implementation and free Provet Academy access. We could not open a Provet API reference page in this session, so ask for current API documentation before you assume export access. Compare the platform with AVImark in our Provet Cloud vs AVImark guide.

Evidence: Provet pricing page.

Shepherd

Vendor positioning: Shepherd describes itself as cloud-based practice management built by veterinarians. Its site names SummarizeAI, TranscribeAI and DiagnoseAI as built-in tools and says treatments added during a visit appear on the invoice with discharge instructions. Our read: it is the most emergency-oriented of the six, and it does not claim specialty practices.

Best fit: emergency and urgent-care hospitals that want AI-assisted notes and charges captured from the medical record.

Limitations: no published price, a 404 on its pricing URL in our session, and no named specialty practice type.

Implementation: confirm whether AI-generated notes need clinician sign-off before go-live. Treat that as a review point in your workflow, not as a feature the vendor guarantees.

Evidence: Shepherd's own site. We could not open a deep pricing page, so we cite none.

IDEXX Neo

Vendor positioning: IDEXX says Neo helps staff "Complete everyday tasks 5x faster," with a footnote citing data on file at IDEXX, according to IDEXX (undated). The page also describes cloud access from any device, setup that includes data conversion and training tools, and optional add-ons for integrated payments and Vello client engagement.

Best fit: practices that want a cloud system from a company that also sells diagnostics and can accept quote-first pricing.

Limitations: the page shows no price and names no specialty or referral feature. The 5x figure is a vendor claim, and the data behind it is not published.

Implementation: data conversion is part of setup, so budget time for historical records. Ask how long conversion takes and whether it is included in the subscription quote. For a head-to-head view, see our IDEXX Neo vs Cornerstone guide.

Evidence: the Neo product page cited above.

Cornerstone

Vendor positioning: Cornerstone is an IDEXX product. IDEXX's news post says rVetLink joined its portfolio as a referral tool for specialty hospitals. Instinct ranks Cornerstone second for corporate and private practices in a survey of 463 respondents, according to Instinct (2026).

Best fit: specialty and referral hospitals already in the IDEXX ecosystem that want a referral tool from the same company.

Limitations: the Cornerstone pricing and product pages we tried returned 404 errors, so its price is quote-based here. Whether rVetLink connects to Cornerstone is unconfirmed.

Implementation: if referral intake runs in rVetLink while records stay in Cornerstone, you operate two systems. Map who enters what before any build. The IDEXX announcement is at IDEXX's rVetLink announcement.

Covetrus Pulse

Vendor positioning: covetrus.com lists Pulse as practice management software under workflow and productivity tools. Its testimonials come from general animal hospitals and one animal rescue. The page offers "Request a demo" and no price. Pulse is the rebranded eVetPractice, and Instinct's survey ranks it third for private practices.

Best fit: general private practices that want a demo before they scope anything.

Limitations: it has the thinnest specialty evidence of the six. We found no specialty, emergency or referral feature on the pages we opened.

Implementation: ask for a demo built on your own referral and results workflow, and get the price in writing before you compare it with anything else.

Who this is for

• A single-site specialty hospital that wants published tiers before a sales call: start with ezyVet and Provet's Core plan.

• A multi-site referral group: model Provet's Pro plan against an ezyVet corporate quote.

• An emergency or urgent-care hospital: put Shepherd in the demo round.

• A hospital already built around IDEXX diagnostics: request Cornerstone and Neo quotes with add-ons written out.

Red flags: the vendor will not put an entry price or a per-vet rule in writing before the demo; your referral intake lives in a shared inbox with no export; nobody on staff will own the system after go-live.

Implementation: where the referral and results steps break

Specialty hospitals usually fail on two handoffs: incomplete referrals that arrive without the records needed to schedule, and diagnostic results that go back to the referring clinic without a record of who approved the wording. The two workflows below are proposals a US Tech Automations design could configure. They are not a description of any live deployment, and each depends on the prerequisites and review points named in it.

The first proposed workflow handles referral intake. Its trigger is a new referral record in the practice system, or a referral export that lands in a shared folder. The workflow checks required fields such as species, referring veterinarian and attached records, then creates an intake task for a coordinator. The output is a checklist inside that task and a draft acknowledgement to the referring clinic, which the coordinator must approve. The prerequisites are a vendor-approved API credential or a scheduled export, plus read access to referral records. The human review point is simple: a coordinator approves every incomplete referral before any scheduling or client contact.

The second proposed workflow handles diagnostic results. Its trigger is a result posted to a consult or a change in its status. The workflow reads the linked identifiers, such as consult_id and animal_id on ezyVet's diagnostic-result request, and drafts a plain-language update for the referring veterinarian. The output is a draft in a review queue with the lab identifier attached for audit. The prerequisites are read access to diagnostic results and a mapping between lab identifiers and patient records. The attending veterinarian approves the clinical wording before anything leaves the practice. Turnaround data from both workflows can feed our reporting and analytics guide.

Doing it yourself in Zapier, Make or n8n

Zapier, Make and n8n can run the same referral and results steps. When they are configured, they can keep run histories, retry failed steps, branch on errors and write audit records. The difference is ownership. A practice that builds the flow itself must design and maintain observability, idempotency (so a retry does not create a second intake task), escalation to a named person, access controls on patient data, and fixes after each vendor API change. A proposed US Tech Automations design would configure those run histories, error branches and escalation routes up front, but it would still depend on the same prerequisites: API or export access from the practice system, a named approver, and a decision on who holds the credentials. Choose the DIY route if your team already runs integrations. Choose a managed design if it does not.

When NOT to use US Tech Automations

Skip a custom automation layer in three cases. If referral volume is light enough to run from the practice system's own tasks and reminders, the built-in tools cost less to keep. If the hospital is already on Provet Pro and uses its Referral Portal, the vendor's portal may cover intake without a second system. If nobody on staff can own credentials, approvals and monthly maintenance, a simple export with a named reviewer does less damage than an automation no one watches. In those cases, a proposed US Tech Automations design is the wrong purchase.

Decision checklist in four steps

1. Get written quotes for every shortlisted system, covering platform, per-vet or per-user fees, add-ons, setup, training and data conversion. Start with the quote-based vendors, since they take the longest.

2. Run a referral test in each demo: a referral in, a diagnostic result back out, and an invoice to the referring clinic.

3. Request the API or export documentation, confirm which identifiers you can read, and find out whether access is partner-gated.

4. Name the system owner, the human approval points and the credential holder before you sign.

Glossary for buyers

• Practice management system (PIMS): software for scheduling, medical records, billing and inventory.

• Platform fee: the monthly base charge that covers the first user on Provet's published tiers.

• Per-vet fee: the monthly charge for each additional veterinarian on Provet's tiers.

• Referral portal: a shared intake area for referring clinics. Provet lists one in its Pro tier.

• PACS: picture archiving and communication system. ezyVet's PACS documentation covers diagnostic results.

• API: the interface an integration uses to read and write records. Access may be partner-gated.

Frequently asked questions

Is specialty veterinary software different from general practice software?

Usually not in the core product: most vendors sell one system with practice-type settings, so the real difference lies in the referral, diagnostic and multi-doctor workflows you configure and test.

Which of these vendors publish prices on their own sites?

ezyVet and Provet Cloud publish figures on the pricing pages we opened. IDEXX Neo, Shepherd and Covetrus Pulse do not, and the Cornerstone pricing page returned a 404 error in our session.

Does Provet Cloud include the referral portal on every plan?

No. The Referral Portal is listed under the Pro tier on Provet's pricing page, not under Core.

Are the Instinct rankings a reliable basis for choosing?

They are a useful signal of what practices name, but Instinct is a veterinary software company, the survey reports rankings without market shares, and it covers corporate and private practices only.

Do I need an automation layer on top of the practice system?

Only when referral or results steps cross systems and someone owns the access and maintenance. Otherwise the built-in tasks and exports are enough.

Conclusion

For a specialty or referral hospital, make the practice system decision first, then test the referral and results handoffs, and only then compare price. ezyVet and Provet Cloud give you the most published figures to model before a call. The other four need a quote, so ask each vendor for the same written inputs: platform fee, per-vet or per-user rates, add-ons, setup and data conversion. If you want to see how a referral intake step could be configured and reviewed, see how US Tech Automations configures this.