Head to head · updated 2026-08-01

CareStack vs Denticon

All-in-one growth platform vs enterprise DSO system. Both are cloud, so the hosting decision is not what separates them.

CareStack

CareStack

Cloud all-in-one aimed at growing groups, with published tier pricing.

Deployment
Cloud
Entry price
$829/month starting at
Built for
2–4 locations, Group, DSO / enterprise
Visit CareStack(opens in a new tab)

Read the full CareStack review

Denticon

Planet DDS

Enterprise cloud platform built specifically for DSOs and multi-location groups.

Deployment
Cloud
Entry price
Not published
Built for
Group, DSO / enterprise
Visit Denticon(opens in a new tab)

Read the full Denticon review

The short answer

CareStack publishes a price ($829/month); Denticon does not, so a like-for-like cost comparison is not possible without a quote.

Choose CareStack if…

Multi-location groups that want one vendor for practice management, RCM and engagement.

It is ahead on native imaging, eprescribing, teledentistry, ai features .

Choose Denticon if…

DSOs and groups above roughly five locations that need centralised control and reporting.

It is ahead on open api .

Where they actually differ

Of 19 modules we track, these 5 differ. The rest match, so they are not what should decide it.

ModuleCareStackDenticon
Native imaging Built in Via integration
ePrescribing Built in Via integration
Teledentistry Built in Not stated
AI features Built in Via integration
Open API Not stated Built in
Show all 19 modules, including where they match
ModuleCareStackDenticon
Scheduling Built in Built in
Clinical charting Built in Built in
Perio charting Built in Built in
Native imaging Built in Via integration
Billing Built in Built in
Claims Built in Built in
Insurance eligibility Built in Built in
Payments Built in Built in
Patient messaging Built in Built in
Online booking Built in Built in
Digital forms Built in Built in
Recall / reactivation Built in Built in
Analytics & KPIs Built in Built in
ePrescribing Built in Via integration
Teledentistry Built in Not stated
AI features Built in Via integration
Open API Not stated Built in
Multi-location Built in Built in
Orthodontics Built in Built in

Pricing, side by side

CareStack

Publishes pricingchecked 2026-08-01
PlanPriceBasis
Essentials
per location		$829/monthstarting at
Intelligence
per location		$1,299/monthstarting at

Both tiers are "starting at" figures, so the quoted price will vary with practice size. Review sites widely cite "$698/user/month" — that figure does not appear anywhere on CareStack’s own pricing page.

Source: carestack.com, read 2026-08-01.

Denticon

No published pricingchecked 2026-08-01

Denticon does not publish a price. You have to request a quote, which means you cannot budget or compare before speaking to a salesperson. Quote-only, negotiated per organisation and location count.

We do not repeat third-party price estimates for quote-only vendors. Several widely republished figures in this category turned out to belong to a different product — see how we compare.

Strengths and trade-offs

CareStack

Strengths

  • Publishes tier pricing, which almost no other group-focused cloud vendor does.
  • Very broad native feature set — RCM, engagement, analytics and imaging in one contract.
  • Built for multi-location reporting from the start rather than retrofitted.

Trade-offs

  • "Starting at" means the real quote is negotiated; budget above the published figure.
  • Substantially more expensive than the on-premise options for a single small practice.
  • Breadth comes with depth trade-offs — specialist modules are less mature than dedicated tools.

Denticon

Strengths

  • Built for many locations from the ground up — centralised reporting and roll-ups are native, not add-ons.
  • SOC 2 Type 2 certified, which matters for enterprise procurement.
  • Voice perio charting and a mature orthodontic module.

Trade-offs

  • No published pricing, and enterprise contracts are the norm.
  • Overkill for a single-location practice — you pay for scale you will not use.
  • Imaging relies on integration rather than a native module.

Other comparisons