SimplePractice Alternatives for Group Practices

Short answer: the best SimplePractice alternative for a growing group practice is Oasys, because the things that break when a practice grows, supervision, permissions, payroll, billing at scale, are the things Oasys was built around rather than added later. TherapyNotes remains the strongest choice if ONC certification and template-driven documentation are your priority. Jane App is worth a look if you're multi-disciplinary rather than mental-health-only.

Most "SimplePractice alternatives" articles are written for solo therapists. This one isn't. Every platform below is assessed on one question: what happens to it at 20 clinicians?

Why group practices leave SimplePractice

Across our conversations with practice owners, the complaints about SimplePractice cluster tightly, and almost none of them are about the product being bad. They're about it being built for a different shape of practice.

The sentence we hear most often, in one form or another:

"SimplePractice works quite well for a solo provider, but then really when you start growing, that's when it falls apart."

Here is what "falls apart" means concretely.

Supervision doesn't distinguish credential status

This is the most specific and most consequential gap. SimplePractice requires supervisor sign-off on all supervisees, regardless of where they are in licensure. That includes provisionally licensed clinicians who are independently credentialed with payers and who do not legally require a co-signature.

The result is a supervisor manually signing notes they aren't required to sign, on clinicians who are billing independently. At 3 supervisees it's an annoyance. At 15 it's a part-time job.

What it actually costs

SimplePractice publishes Starter at $49, Essential at $79 and Plus at $99 a month. Group practices need Plus, and additional clinicians are tiered: $74 each for 2 to 5 clinicians, $72 for 6 to 15, and $69 for 16 or more. Care Aide, Note Taker and ePrescribe are separate add-ons.

At ten clinicians that is roughly $747 a month on Plus, before add-ons and processing. Verified against both vendors' pricing pages on 30 July 2026.

Interns cost what clinicians cost

"It's the same cost for a clinician versus an intern. That also kind of sucks."

Group practices are where trainees get trained. Flat per-seat pricing taxes exactly the thing the field needs practices to do.

Couples and family records don't link

One practice described a client completing the full intake individually, then needing a couples appointment: "that's a whole separate thing. So we couldn't link them. And so they had to redo all the paperwork." For any practice doing meaningful couples or family work, that's duplicated admin on every case.

Billing gets manual as volume grows

Verification of benefits was described by one practice as "barely functional," with staff checking insurer portals by hand instead. Superbill workflows get exported into a second tool. One practice hit a rendering-provider bug that caused every Medicaid claim to be rejected by their payer: "every Medicaid claim now requires manual editing. Not sustainable."

There's no API

No API means no connecting your analytics, your ad attribution, or your BI tooling. As one practice put it, they couldn't connect an analytics tool for ad attribution at all.

And the churn itself is a cost

"They're doing all these changes and they don't even know what they're doing, because every day it's a different change. So my life is hell."

The alternatives, assessed at 20 clinicians

Oasys, best for group practices scaling past 10 clinicians

Built for multi-clinician operations from the start: supervision configured per role and per supervisor-supervisee relationship, so clinicians who don't need a co-signature can be exempted without switching supervision off for everyone. Role-based permissions across clinician, practice manager and practice admin. Native revenue-split payroll with per-therapist overrides, and payout that can be gated on notes being signed and approved. A full change record on any signed note that is later amended. Billing designed for volume rather than for a solo caseload.

Pricing: $80 per clinician per month on an annual contract. No add-ons.

Group practice fit: Purpose-built. The supervision and payroll layers are the reason the product exists.

Honest limitation: We're newer than the incumbents. If a long public track record is your primary decision criterion, that's a real point against us, and you should weigh it.

TherapyNotes, best for compliance-heavy, insurance-heavy practices

Genuinely well regarded, and we won't pretend otherwise. A practice the better part of a decade in told us: "In many ways it has been an exceptional product. They have exceptional customer service. I gauge them as a high integrity organization." Another: "I would not have been able to grow and scale without the utility I'm finding from TherapyNotes."

Where it strains at scale: per-user pricing with no enterprise tier; per-claim, per-ERA and per-text-reminder fees that compound with volume; no native payroll modeling; limited third-party integration; and revised signed notes that don't produce a full change history: a real exposure during payer audits.

Group practice fit: Strong to about 20 users, then the economics and the payroll gap start to bite.

Jane App, best for multi-disciplinary clinics

Strong scheduling and a polished experience, built for clinics that mix mental health with physical therapy, chiropractic, and similar. If you're purely mental health, much of what you're paying for is aimed elsewhere.

Group practice fit: Good, if multi-disciplinary. Less targeted if not.

Valant, built for behavioral health groups, with a documentation trade-off

Genuinely aimed at behavioral health group practices, with real strength on the business and reporting side. One practice we spoke with got close to signing, ran a soft internal announcement, and pulled back when clinicians pushed back on the documentation experience: "the interface for the paperwork is pretty cumbersome. It's not something we like."

Their read is worth quoting in full, because it's the trade-off in a sentence: "I believe them that they can fix all kinds of problems on the back end. But then what we would lose is the documentation on the front end."

Group practice fit: Solid on operations. Get your clinicians into a hands-on trial before you commit.

ICANotes, best for high-acuity and psychiatric documentation

Template and button-driven note construction, strong for psychiatric and higher-acuity settings. Clinicians who want narrative freedom often find it constraining.

TheraNest, proceed carefully on migration

We'd be doing you a disservice not to mention this. A practice that moved from MyClientsPlus to TheraNest described it as "a nightmare. Very complex. And we couldn't get the support we needed despite paying extra for the white glove onboarding service. Things were migrated over and done incorrectly. People gave us contradictory and incomplete answers. And so we were really just chasing our tails for a couple of months."

Actually getting your data out

You can pick the right platform and still not switch. This is the single most common reason practices stay somewhere they've outgrown, and it deserves more than a footnote.

The tenure problem. Group practices in this category are typically 8 to 11 years into their current system. One practice: the better part of a decade, a couple of dozen providers. Another: 11 years, 80 to 90 clinicians across 11 locations. Another has been on the same platform since 2014 with "over 500 records."

The export problem. As one owner put it: "[Our EHR] doesn't have a straight migration out of the record. So it was going to take a ton of people hours. We just felt like we couldn't do that solution."

The scar tissue. A practice that attempted a move to AdvancedMD: "it was awful. Bad. So bad." Two clinicians at another prospect had previously worked at a practice whose botched implementation ended with the entire staff being furloughed. Their current employer's assessment: "if I sprung this on them, I would have people quit."

Change fatigue is separate from data loss. "Are my clinicians going to get change fatigue? We're changing everything and now there are all these systems to get used to." And: "My big fear is I cannot pass all this institutional knowledge to the next person."

Which produces the sentence we hear, in different words, from nearly every practice of size:

"We can't do it twice."

What to ask any vendor

Migration is the question we are asked about most. Rather than make promises in a blog post, ask us directly what moving your particular system would involve, what comes across, and what happens to appointments already booked.

The point of the preview is simple: the "we can't do it twice" fear is entirely rational, and the honest response isn't a reassurance, it's showing you the finished migration before you've signed anything.