SimplePractice Reviews: What Practices Actually Say in 2026

Short answer: SimplePractice is genuinely well built and most solo therapists who use it are happy with it. The complaints cluster almost entirely around one thing, what happens when a practice grows. Supervision, permissions, intern pricing, couples records, and billing at volume are where the reviews turn negative, and they turn negative in the same places across practice after practice.

We make a competing product. So rather than write our opinion, we've reported what practices have told us directly, plus what shows up publicly. Our own position is at the end, clearly labeled.

The consensus in one paragraph

For a solo therapist: excellent. Polished interface, the best mobile app in the category, broad support for practitioner types beyond mental health, and an ecosystem of templates and community knowledge. Most reviews from solo practitioners are positive and we think they're correct.

For a group practice: it depends heavily on size. Under five clinicians, most practices are fine. Between five and fifteen, the friction starts showing. Past fifteen, the complaints get consistent and specific.

What practices praise

• Interface and usability. Widely described as the most pleasant product in a category

not known for pleasant products.

• Mobile app. Regularly cited as the best available.
• Client portal. Clients find it easy, which reduces intake friction.
• Breadth. Supports practitioner types well outside mental health, useful for

multi-disciplinary settings.

• Ecosystem. Large user base means templates, forum answers, and workflows already

exist for most problems.

One practice's summary, which we think is fair: "We are using SimplePractice and it is fine."

What practices criticize

It changes shape as you grow

The most repeated observation, in various words:

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

Supervision doesn't distinguish credential status

The most specific complaint we've collected. Sign-off is required for all supervisees, regardless of where they are in licensure, including provisionally licensed clinicians who are independently credentialed with payers and don't legally require a co-signature.

One practice asked directly: "if it's a supervisee, you have to sign off on everything. Is there a way to differentiate that?"

At three supervisees this is a nuisance. At fifteen it consumes a supervisor's week.

Interns cost what licensed clinicians cost

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

For practices running training programs, this is a direct tax on training. One practice we spoke with carries more trainees than licensed clinicians.

Couples and family records don't link

"They filled out all the information for them individually, but then when they do need to do a couple, that's like a whole separate thing. So we couldn't link them. And so they had to redo all the paperwork."

Billing gets manual at volume

• Verification of benefits described as "barely functional", with staff checking payer

portals by hand.

• Superbills exported to a second tool for submission; the workflow called *"pretty

cumbersome."*

• Invoice detail limited, one practice couldn't produce a payment breakdown a client

asked for: "I couldn't get it to break down."

• One practice hit a rendering-provider issue that caused their payer to reject every

Medicaid claim: "every Medicaid claim now requires manual editing. Not sustainable."

Cost, once you total it

The base price isn't the complaint. The total is.

"It is really expensive for what it offers."

Card processing was flagged by one practice at roughly 3.25%, "that really adds up so much", on top of platform fees.

No API

No connecting analytics, ad attribution, or BI tooling. For practices spending on marketing, this makes attribution guesswork.

The pace of change

"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."

A related and underrated worry, key-person risk on institutional knowledge:

"My big fear is I cannot pass all this institutional knowledge I have about SimplePractice to the next person."

What the public reviews say

Public sentiment tracks what we hear privately. On Reddit, which ranks on page one for nearly every SimplePractice query, and is where most honest discussion happens, the recurring threads are about price increases and alternatives. A thread titled "SimplePractice just doubled my rate" ranks on page one for simplepractice pricing.

Review aggregators skew more positive than Reddit, which is normal: aggregators over-sample satisfied solo users, while Reddit over-samples people actively frustrated enough to post. The truth is in between, and it's segmented by practice size.

Who SimplePractice is right for

A good fit if: you're solo or under about five clinicians; you want the best mobile experience; you see clients across multiple practitioner types; you value a large ecosystem; documentation flexibility matters more than structure.

A poor fit if: you supervise a mix of interns and provisionally licensed clinicians; you run a training program and don't want to pay full seat price for trainees; you do significant couples or family work; you're submitting high claim volume; you need API access.

Our position, clearly labeled

We make Oasys, an EHR for mental health group practices, so treat this section as an advertisement rather than a review.

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.

If you're a solo therapist, we'd point you at SimplePractice.