Veterinary practices spend weeks comparing software features and surprisingly little time comparing the contracts underneath them.
That is backwards.
A PMS can hold years of clinical history, become the route into laboratories and payments, sit behind most client communication and become embedded in almost every workflow in the practice.
Once that happens, the commercial terms governing exit, data access and price changes can matter as much as another feature on the roadmap.
We reviewed publicly available contractual material for ten veterinary PMS providers and product families:
- Merlin / MWI
- Provet
- IDEXX ezyVet
- IDEXX Animana
- Covetrus
- Lupa
- Vetspire
- Shepherd
- Digitail
- VetIT / Teleos
The purpose is not to declare one product "best". We have not tested every product and individual Order Forms can change the standard contractual position.
The question is narrower:
What does the public contract tell a veterinary practice about its freedom to stay, integrate and leave?
How we assessed the contracts
We looked at nine areas:
- contract term and renewal;
- early-exit economics;
- data ownership;
- data export and post-termination access;
- API and integration control;
- secondary data and AI rights;
- price-change rights;
- SLA and liability; and
- transparency of the public contractual material.
We have deliberately not scored a provider negatively simply because we could not find its operative customer agreement.
Where the public material is insufficient, the result is Not publicly assessable.
That distinction matters. The rest of this series examines each issue: data ownership, exit cost, price rises, API control, AI use, criticism clauses, downtime liability and the Freedom Test.
Merlin / MWI — high concern on exit, pricing, API control and liability
Merlin's published terms are detailed, which is useful for procurement.
They expressly say the customer owns its Customer Data.
But the termination provisions also say MWI may destroy or otherwise dispose of Customer Data unless the clinic has purchased separate read-only licences or requested its latest backup before termination. That backup can be charged at MWI's then-current rate, with reasonable expenses, and relevant outstanding fees must be paid.
Source: Merlin Terms and Conditions, clauses 5.1 and 15.5(d)
Merlin's API provisions allow Professional Services Fees and give MWI sole control over the API, including the format of data and means of access.
Its pricing terms allow an annual increase for qualifying contracts based on the greater of CPI or 5%, with a separate provision for specified supplier cost increases.
Its standard aggregate liability is generally capped at the lower of the preceding 12 months' licence fees and £20,000, subject to the contractual exceptions and applicable law.
Sources: Merlin Terms and Conditions, clauses 6, 9 and 14
Assessment: High contractual concern.
The data-ownership statement is positive, but practical exit rights, API control, price escalation and the liability cap deserve close attention.
Provet — mixed, with a particularly good AI safeguard
Provet's current terms retain customer ownership of Customer Data and provide a 60-day post-termination period in which the customer can retrieve or delete its data.
Source: Provet Terms of Service, sections 14.2 and 17.1
The standard termination provision requires at least three months' notice tied to the end of the initial or renewal term.
Provet can change subscription pricing, but importantly gives customers that reject the new price a mechanism to terminate the affected service.
Its terms permit anonymisation, aggregation and benchmarking. We do not regard those uses as inherently customer-unfriendly.
More significantly, Provet expressly says it will not enable an AI service provider to use the customer's data to train that provider's models unless the customer instructs it to do so or law requires it.
Source: Provet Terms of Service, sections 3.1.3, 3.2.3, 5.1.5 and 13.1
The main concern is liability. Provet's standard aggregate cap is based on the first three months of Subscription Charges, and its 99.9% availability figure is expressed as a target rather than an ordinary liability-backed guarantee.
Source: Provet Terms of Service, sections 6.4 and 19
Assessment: Mixed.
There are meaningful customer-friendly provisions, particularly around AI-provider training and price changes, but the exit timing and low standard liability cap deserve scrutiny.
IDEXX ezyVet — concern over economic lock-in; API partner rules add ecosystem friction
For ezyVet, the key public customer source in this review is IDEXX's Software Offering General Terms, subject to any ezyVet-specific Order Form or terms.
Those general terms contain automatic-renewal provisions and say that where the customer cancels early, it must pay unpaid subscription fees through the end of the current subscription term.
Source: IDEXX Software Offering General Terms, section 3
That can create significant economic lock-in where the agreed term is long.
IDEXX says the customer owns Customer Data while taking broad rights to use that information internally to provide, improve, develop and enhance offerings and for other stated purposes, together with aggregation rights.
Source: IDEXX Software Offering General Terms, section 4.2
There is also an ecosystem issue.
ezyVet's Private API Terms for integration partners, not clinics, prohibit a partner from building conversion functionality that converts ezyVet User Data for use on a competing product or service.
Source: ezyVet Private API Terms, section 3.2(h)
That should not be misrepresented as a clause directly preventing a clinic from leaving ezyVet. It may, however, make third-party migration tooling harder to develop.
Assessment: High concern where the Order Form creates a long committed term.
The most important question for a clinic is the duration of the subscription stated on its own Order Form.
IDEXX Animana — minimum term, equal-period renewal and potentially chargeable data provision
Animana has more specific public terms.
They state a minimum initial subscription term of 12 months and renewal for successive periods equal to the existing subscription period unless notice is served.
The terms also say IDEXX may charge additional fees for providing Customer Data following account closure.
Source: IDEXX Animana Offering-Specific Terms, section 4
Animana pricing may be modified with at least one month's notice, and the terms contain a mechanism allowing minimum monthly charges to begin if a customer has not gone live within six months after the initial intake appointment.
Source: IDEXX Animana Offering-Specific Terms, section 5
Read alongside the IDEXX general early-cancellation clause, the renewal and exit provisions require careful diary management.
Assessment: High concern on lock-in and exit economics.
Covetrus UK/EMEA — moderate concern, particularly around liability and claim notification
We reviewed the publicly available Covetrus EMEA Master Service Terms v6.
They allow Covetrus to increase pricing once each year with at least 90 days' notice. The master terms also contain a general 90-day termination right for either party, although individual Order Forms and Statements of Work may alter the practical position.
Source: Covetrus EMEA Master Service Terms v6, clauses 14 and 15
The liability section excludes categories including loss or corruption of data and caps total liability at the lower of annual fees paid for the Technology Services in the preceding 12 months or £500,000.
It also contains a short contractual claim-notification requirement: written notice within two months of becoming aware, or when the customer ought reasonably to have become aware, of the circumstances giving rise to liability.
Source: Covetrus EMEA Master Service Terms v6, clause 13
The Data Processing Annex says Covetrus will, at the customer's written direction on termination, delete or return personal data unless applicable law requires retention.
Source: Covetrus EMEA Master Service Terms v6, Data Processing Annex section 2.5(g)
Assessment: Mixed to moderate concern.
The public EMEA agreement is less extreme on exit than some contracts in this review. The two-month claim-notification provision and liability allocation are the clauses we would examine most closely.
Lupa — comparatively clinic-friendly, with migration risk shifted toward the customer
Lupa's public terms allow a client to terminate for any reason with 30 days' written notice before the intended termination date.
Already-paid fees are not refunded, but the terms say the client is not responsible for additional termination, data-retrieval or data-transfer costs unless extraordinary circumstances are agreed in writing.
Source: Lupa Terms and Conditions, sections 14.4 and 14.7.3
Standard-tier annual price increases are linked to CPI, subject to notice, although renewal pricing can change separately.
Source: Lupa Terms and Conditions, section 4.4
The main area to examine is migration. The terms give the client three business days to review a trial migration environment. Failure to respond can amount to acceptance, and further corrections after final migration can be charged at £100 per hour. The customer also takes substantial responsibility for data accuracy and completeness.
Source: Lupa Terms and Conditions, section 5.4
Assessment: Comparatively clinic-friendly.
The standard exit and pricing mechanics are among the cleaner ones reviewed, but a practice should resource migration validation properly.
Vetspire — high concern on non-disparagement, data use and exit retrieval
Vetspire's public terms contain the most unusual clause in this comparison.
Section 6.4(d) says the customer and specified associated people will not voluntarily make statements that defame, disparage or in any way criticise Vetspire, its platform, products, reputation, practices or conduct.
Source: Vetspire Terms & Conditions, section 6.4(d)
We express no view here on enforceability in any particular jurisdiction. As a procurement term, however, a broad restriction on customer criticism is difficult to justify.
Vetspire also grants itself rights to use de-identified Customer Data for service improvement, medical, veterinary and pharmaceutical research and AI research and development, retaining rights in resulting services and commercial endeavours.
Source: Vetspire Terms & Conditions, sections 3.2–3.3
On termination, data remains available for electronic retrieval for 30 days, subscription fees continue during that period and additional transfer assistance can be charged at then-current rates.
Source: Vetspire Terms & Conditions, section 5.3
Third-party API access also requires approval and an API Agreement, with applicable integration or certification fees.
Assessment: High contractual concern.
The combination of non-disparagement, broad secondary data rights, API control and paid retrieval-period access makes this one of the more supplier-favourable public agreements reviewed.
Shepherd — comparatively clinic-friendly exit and explicit CSV export
Shepherd's EULA contains a one-year initial term and annual renewal language, but it also gives the client a right to give notice at any time, taking effect 14 days later once amounts due through termination are paid.
Source: Shepherd Service Agreement / EULA, section 4
On termination, Shepherd says the client receives all of its data as raw CSV tables together with up to two backups.
Source: Shepherd Service Agreement / EULA, section 5(d)
That is one of the clearest portability commitments in the contracts reviewed.
The counterweight is a $2,750 migration charge in specified circumstances, including certain cancellations within the first 12 months where Shepherd performed the initial migration.
Source: Shepherd Service Agreement / EULA, section 10(j)
Shepherd also reserves rights to analyse, publish and use anonymised or de-identified practice data.
Assessment: Comparatively clinic-friendly.
This is a US/international comparison rather than a UK-specific agreement, but its data-export wording is a useful benchmark.
Digitail — not publicly assessable from the terms we found
Digitail publishes Terms and Conditions.
However, the public document we reviewed appears to cover the website, mobile application and broader user relationships, including pet-parent functionality. It does not give us enough confidence to determine the full clinic SaaS position on committed term, complete data export, API portability, migration charges and post-termination records.
Source: Digitail public Terms and Conditions
It would be wrong to mark those unknowns as negative.
A practice considering Digitail should request the operative clinic Master Services Agreement, Order Form, Data Processing Agreement and migration/export schedule before purchase.
Assessment: Not publicly assessable on all of our criteria.
VetIT / Teleos — not publicly assessable from available standard terms
VetIT is an established UK veterinary PMS.
During this review we did not locate a comprehensive publicly accessible clinic software agreement equivalent to the Merlin, Provet or IDEXX documents.
Source: VetIT / Teleos website
That does not mean VetIT's terms are unfavourable.
It means we cannot responsibly score provisions we have not seen.
A prospective practice should request the current software agreement and obtain written answers on term, renewal, export format, export fees, API access, post-termination retention and liability before signing.
Assessment: Not publicly assessable from the material located.
Comparison summary
| Provider | Overall contract view | Main point to check |
|---|---|---|
| Merlin / MWI | High concern | Data exit, API fees/control, CPI-or-5% escalation, liability cap |
| Provet | Mixed | Term-linked notice and low liability cap; strong AI-provider training safeguard |
| IDEXX ezyVet | High concern where term is long | Remaining-term fees after early cancellation |
| IDEXX Animana | High concern | 12-month minimum, equal renewals, potentially chargeable data provision |
| Covetrus UK/EMEA | Mixed / moderate concern | Liability exclusions and two-month claim notification |
| Lupa | Comparatively clinic-friendly | Migration validation window and correction charges |
| Vetspire | High concern | Non-disparagement, secondary data/AI use, retrieval-period fees |
| Shepherd | Comparatively clinic-friendly | $2,750 migration fee in specified circumstances |
| Digitail | Not publicly assessable | Obtain operative clinic SaaS agreement |
| VetIT / Teleos | Not publicly assessable | Obtain operative clinic SaaS agreement |
What should a good PMS contract look like?
Our preferred benchmark is straightforward.
A practice should be able to understand, before signing:
- exactly how long it is committed;
- what it owes if it leaves;
- that it owns its data;
- how to export all of that data;
- what the export costs;
- which machine-readable formats are supplied;
- whether it can authorise third-party integrations;
- what anonymised and AI uses are permitted;
- how prices can change;
- how long records remain available after termination; and
- what remedy exists when the service fails.
There is no reason every supplier has to make the same commercial choices.
But the choices should be visible.
The real switching barrier should be the product
Veterinary practices naturally become attached to a PMS over time.
Staff learn it. Workflows develop around it. Integrations accumulate. Historical data grows.
That is already a formidable retention advantage for the incumbent supplier.
The best software businesses should not need another one.
A practice should stay because the PMS continues to be the best place to run the business, not because the contract makes leaving disproportionately expensive or difficult.
Methodology: this is a commercial review of publicly available standard supplier documents, not legal advice or a review of every individual customer contract. Order Forms, Statements of Work, negotiated amendments and jurisdiction-specific terms may change the position. US/international sources are expressly labelled. Public sources reviewed on 2026-08-20.