How we compare

Pricing: published figures only

We publish a price only when it appears on the vendor's own website. Every price carries a link to its source and the date we read it. Where a vendor publishes nothing, we say so, and we leave the field empty.

We do not use figures from review aggregators, even to fill gaps. That rule exists because when we cross-checked the widely republished figures in this category, several were wrong. In Australia the problem is starker: every Canadian-built system is quote-only, so any figure you find for one came from somewhere other than the vendor. We publish none of them. The full audit is in which dental software publishes its prices.

In Australia, 0 of 8 vendors publish a price. Prices were last checked on 2026-08-01. They change without notice — treat this site as a shortlisting tool and confirm the current figure before you buy.

Features: documented, not inferred

We track 19 modules per product and record each as built in, a paid add-on, available via integration, unavailable, or not stated. That last category matters: where a vendor does not document a capability publicly, we mark it "not stated" rather than assuming. A blank is more honest than a guess.

Comparison pages derive their differences from this dataset programmatically. Nobody hand-picks which differences to highlight, so a vendor cannot be favoured by selective presentation.

Rankings

We do not publish a single "best" ranking, because the question has no single answer — a solo practice optimising for cost and a twelve-location DSO optimising for control are not shopping in the same market. Our shortlist is organised by use case, and each entry states the catch as well as the case for it.

The default sort on comparison tables is cheapest published price first. Vendors that publish nothing sort last — not as a penalty, but because an unknown cannot be placed in a price order.

How we make money, and what it does not buy

We earn affiliate commission when a reader visits some vendors through links on this site. No vendor can pay for placement, a better score, a softer review, or removal of a criticism. Several products we rate highly pay us nothing, and several that pay carry prominent criticism on their own pages.

Every page carrying an affiliate link discloses it above the first link, not just in the footer. Full details on the disclosure page.

What we do not do

• We do not run star ratings or scores out of ten. They compress incomparable things into a number that looks objective and is not.
• We do not aggregate user reviews. Review volume in this category is small, heavily gamed, and dominated by the largest vendors regardless of quality.
• We do not claim hands-on testing we have not done. This site compares documented pricing, deployment and capabilities. It is not a lab review, and where a judgement is editorial we frame it as one.

Known limits

• One market per site section. Software is welded to the national claims system (ADA item numbers / HICAPS here), so each market has its own vendor set and its own prices. We cover United States and Canada and United Kingdom and Україна and Australia; a figure from one market is never shown on another's pages.
• 8 systems in Australia, not every product on the market. We cover those with meaningful search demand and installed base. The vendor universe is cross-checked against HICAPS software integration partners.
• Published information only. A vendor that documents its product badly will look worse here than one that documents it well. That is a real bias, and we would rather state it than hide it.
• Point-in-time data. Everything here was accurate on 2026-08-01.

Corrections

If a price, feature or claim on this site is wrong, we want to fix it — particularly if you are the vendor. Send the correction with a link to the source and we will update the page and the check date.