Clinic scheduling software: AI search visibility ranking (2026)
How AI search engines rank clinic scheduling software by visibility and citations. 20 brands measured monthly across Google AI Mode: which brands the AI names in answers, which domains it cites as sources, and how the leaders compare. Scheduling software used by clinics and practices to manage appointments, reminders, intake, provider calendars, and patient booking flows. Composite score: 70% visibility (% of AI answers naming the brand) + 30% citation rate (% citing the brand's domain). Full methodology →
Refreshed Jun 13, 2026Download this ranking as a PDF
We'll email it to you. One-off send — no list, no follow-up, no surprise marketing.
At a glance
What we observed in this categoryauto-generated
Setmore holds the top rank in clinic scheduling software AI visibility with a composite score of 16.2, meaningfully ahead of the four brands tied at 8.8 (Acuity Scheduling, Tebra, Kareo, and Jane App). The gap matters because Setmore is the only brand converting visibility into citations, recording a 25.0% citation rate while every other ranked brand sits at 0.0%. The category average visibility is just 3.1%, meaning even the tied group at 12.5% is performing well above the norm.
A sharp divergence exists between being named and being trusted as a source. Acuity Scheduling, Tebra, Kareo, and Jane App each appear in 12.5% of AI responses but receive zero citations, indicating Google AI Mode mentions them without linking back to their domains. Setmore is the only brand in the top five that Google AI Mode actually cites. Brands ranked 6 through 10, including SimplePractice, Cliniko, and Weave, record 0.0% on both metrics, making them invisible in this AI channel entirely.
The top cited sources list reveals that Google AI Mode anchors heavily on third-party and niche domains rather than the major brand sites. Sources such as waitwellsoftware.com, practicesuite.com, omnimd.com, and lunacal.ai appear in the citation list alongside setmore.com, suggesting the AI draws supporting content from smaller specialist sites. None of the other top-five brand domains appear in the cited sources list, reinforcing that high visibility does not reliably translate into citation authority in this category.
Movers & shakers since last refresh
Biggest visibility risers
-
Setmore 0% → 12% · rank #0 → #1+12pp
-
Acuity Scheduling 0% → 12% · rank #0 → #2+12pp
-
Tebra 0% → 12% · rank #0 → #3+12pp
The ranking
| # | Brand | Visibility | Citation | Top engine |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
setmore.com
|
12% | 25% | Google AI Mode |
Setmore leads all 20 brands with a composite score of 16.2 and is the only top-five brand achieving any citation presence, at 25.0% versus a category average of 1.2%. |
||||
| 2 |
acuityscheduling.com
|
12% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
Acuity Scheduling matches Setmore on visibility at 12.5% but records 0.0% citations, giving it a composite score of 8.8 and no source authority in Google AI Mode responses. |
||||
| 3 |
tebra.com
|
12% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
Tebra sits at 12.5% visibility and 0.0% citations with a composite score of 8.8, identical to Acuity Scheduling and indistinguishable from peers at this tier in citation performance. |
||||
| 4 |
kareo.com
|
12% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
Kareo shares the three-way tie at 12.5% visibility and 0.0% citations, scoring 8.8 composite, with no differentiation from Tebra or Jane App on any measured metric in this audit. |
||||
| 5 |
jane.app
|
12% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
Jane App records 12.5% visibility and 0.0% citations for a composite score of 8.8, placing it fourth equal with Acuity, Tebra, and Kareo while outperforming 15 brands scoring 0.0% composite. |
||||
| 6 |
nexhealth.com
|
0% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
| 7 |
solutionreach.com
|
0% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
| 8 |
getweave.com
|
0% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
| 9 |
simplepractice.com
|
0% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
| 10 |
cliniko.com
|
0% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
| 11 |
zocdoc.com
|
0% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
| 12 |
drchrono.com
|
0% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
| 13 |
athenahealth.com
|
0% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
| 14 |
practicebetter.io
|
0% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
| 15 |
thryv.com
|
0% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
| 16 |
advancedmd.com
|
0% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
| 17 |
practicefusion.com
|
0% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
| 18 |
healthengine.com.au
|
0% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
| 19 |
demandforce.com
|
0% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
| 20 |
hotdoc.com.au
|
0% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
Sources AI engines trust in this category
Across the 8 buyer-intent queries we ran on clinic scheduling software, these are the domains Google AI Mode cited most often. If you're not on this list — or if your competitors are — that's a concrete PR / linkbuilding target.
How to read this ranking
Four things worth knowing before you act on the numbers above. These are the same definitions across every industry page — for category-specific observations, see the What we observed section above (where available) and the per-brand insights inline in the ranking.
Visibility = being named
A brand's visibility % is the share of AI answers that mention it by name in the response prose. This is who AI engines actively recommend to the buyer.
Citation rate = being trusted
Citation rate is the share of AI answers that include the brand's domain as a clickable source link. This is what the AI treats as authoritative evidence — different from being named.
Top engine differs by brand
The "top engine" column shows which AI surface each brand performs best on. Big gaps between a brand's score across engines usually points to specific content or schema gaps.
Rankings move month to month
AI engines re-crawl and re-rank on shorter cycles than classical search. We re-audit every brand on this list at least every 30 days and refresh this page automatically.
Get your own clinic scheduling software brand audited
The brands above were curated from public market-leader lists. Want the same measurement against your own brand — including the queries you appear on, which competitors get named instead, and a prioritised fix list? Run a free preview.
Frequently asked about clinic scheduling software AI visibility
Who leads AI visibility in clinic scheduling software?
Setmore leads with a composite score of 16.2, the only brand in the category to record both meaningful visibility (12.5%) and citations (25.0%) in Google AI Mode.
What is the average AI visibility for clinic scheduling software brands?
The category average visibility is 3.1% and average citation rate is 1.2%, with the majority of the 20 tracked brands scoring 0.0% on both measures.
Which brands appear in AI responses but receive no citations?
Acuity Scheduling, Tebra, Kareo, and Jane App each appear in 12.5% of AI responses but have 0.0% citation rates, meaning Google AI Mode names them without linking their domains.
What sources does Google AI Mode cite most for clinic scheduling software research?
The top cited sources include waitwellsoftware.com, practicesuite.com, omnimd.com, and setmore.com, with most being niche or third-party sites rather than the major brand domains.
How many clinic scheduling software brands have zero AI visibility?
At least 15 of the 20 tracked brands, including SimplePractice, Cliniko, Weave, NexHealth, and Solutionreach, record 0.0% visibility and 0.0% citations in this audit.
Is high AI visibility in this category a reliable indicator of citation authority?
No. Four of the five most visible brands have 0.0% citation rates, showing that appearing in AI responses and being cited as a source are largely decoupled in this category.