monitoraeo
AI Visibility Rankings · Healthcare

Medical scheduling software: AI search visibility ranking (2026)

How AI search engines rank medical 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. Medical scheduling software used to book patients, manage providers, automate reminders, reduce no-shows, and streamline clinic operations. Composite score: 70% visibility (% of AI answers naming the brand) + 30% citation rate (% citing the brand's domain). Full methodology →

Refreshed Jun 10, 2026
6%
Avg visibility across category
2%
Avg citation rate
20/20
Brands successfully audited
X LinkedIn

At a glance

Category leader Phreesia 25% visibility · named in 2 of 8 AI answers
Most cited brand Phreesia 25% citation rate · the AI's most-trusted source brand in medical scheduling software
Top cited domain waitwellsoftware.com Referenced by AI across the medical scheduling software query set — the highest-leverage PR target in this category
Visibility spread 25pp Gap between top and bottom of the ranking · 13 brands at 0% (invisible to the AI)

What we observed in this categoryauto-generated

Phreesia holds the top position in AI visibility for medical scheduling software with a composite score of 25.0, identical to its visibility and citation rates — making it the only brand where all three metrics fully align. Athenahealth shares the same 25.0% visibility score but carries a 0.0% citation rate, producing a lower composite of 17.5. This gap between the two leaders is significant: Phreesia is both named and trusted as a source, while athenahealth is mentioned but never directly cited by Google AI Mode.

A clear divergence exists between brands that are named in AI responses and those that are actually cited. NexHealth and DrChrono both score 12.5% on visibility and citation, reflecting consistent but modest presence. By contrast, Solutionreach, Tebra, and Acuity Scheduling each register 12.5% visibility with 0.0% citation — meaning Google AI Mode references them in narrative but does not anchor responses with their domains as authoritative sources. This named-but-not-trusted pattern affects three of the top seven ranked brands.

Google AI Mode is the dominant engine across all 20 brands in this audit, with no other engine surfacing as a top driver for any brand. Notably, the top cited sources in the category are almost entirely third-party review and software directory sites — waitwellsoftware.com, emitrr.com, softwarefinder.com, and blaze.tech among them — rather than the brand domains themselves. This signals that Google AI Mode is anchoring its responses on aggregator and review content rather than on vendor-owned pages, even when vendor brands are named.

Movers & shakers since last refresh

Biggest visibility risers

  • Phreesia 0% → 25% · rank #0 → #1
    +25pp
  • athenahealth 0% → 25% · rank #0 → #2
    +25pp
  • NexHealth 0% → 12% · rank #0 → #3
    +12pp

The ranking

# Brand Visibility Citation Top engine
1
phreesia.com
25% 25% Google AI Mode

Phreesia is the only brand where visibility, citation, and composite score all align at 25.0%, placing it 19.4 points above the 5.6% category average visibility.

2
athenahealth.com
25% 0% Google AI Mode

Athenahealth matches Phreesia's 25.0% visibility but holds a 0.0% citation rate, dropping its composite to 17.5 — the largest visibility-to-citation gap among all ranked brands.

3
nexhealth.com
12% 12% Google AI Mode

NexHealth scores 12.5% on both visibility and citation, matching DrChrono exactly and representing the second tier of brands with consistent but partial AI presence.

4
drchrono.com
12% 12% Google AI Mode

DrChrono mirrors NexHealth with identical 12.5% visibility and citation scores, suggesting both brands occupy a symmetrical mid-tier position in Google AI Mode responses.

5
solutionreach.com
12% 0% Google AI Mode

Solutionreach appears in 12.5% of AI responses but earns zero citations, grouping it with Tebra and Acuity Scheduling as brands named but not treated as authoritative sources.

6
tebra.com
12% 0% Google AI Mode
7
acuityscheduling.com
12% 0% Google AI Mode
8
getweave.com
0% 0% Google AI Mode
9
eclinicalworks.com
0% 0% Google AI Mode
10
simplepractice.com
0% 0% Google AI Mode
11
advancedmd.com
0% 0% Google AI Mode
12
zocdoc.com
0% 0% Google AI Mode
13
hotdoc.com.au
0% 0% Google AI Mode
14
gethealthie.com
0% 0% Google AI Mode
15
jane.app
0% 0% Google AI Mode
16
cliniko.com
0% 0% Google AI Mode
17
practicebetter.io
0% 0% Google AI Mode
18
setmore.com
0% 0% Google AI Mode
19
calendly.com
0% 0% Google AI Mode
20
qliqsoft.com
0% 0% Google AI Mode

Sources AI engines trust in this category

Across the 8 buyer-intent queries we ran on medical 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.

waitwellsoftware.comemitrr.comsoftwarefinder.comblaze.techpracticesuite.comnoterro.comconnecteam.comlunacal.ai

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 medical 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.

Audit your medical scheduling software brand → Browse all rankings Methodology →

Frequently asked about medical scheduling software AI visibility

Who leads AI visibility in medical scheduling software?

Phreesia leads with a composite score of 25.0 and matching visibility and citation rates of 25.0%, making it the category's most consistently present brand in Google AI Mode responses.

Which brands are mentioned by AI but not cited as sources in this category?

Athenahealth, Solutionreach, Tebra, and Acuity Scheduling all appear in AI responses with visibility scores of 12.5–25.0% but carry 0.0% citation rates, meaning they are named but not linked as authoritative references.

What sources does AI cite most for medical scheduling software research?

Google AI Mode primarily cites third-party aggregators and review sites including waitwellsoftware.com, emitrr.com, softwarefinder.com, and blaze.tech rather than vendor-owned domains.

How does the category average visibility compare to the top brands?

The category average visibility is 5.6%, while the top two brands — Phreesia and athenahealth — both sit at 25.0%, indicating that AI visibility in this category is heavily concentrated at the top.

Are any major medical scheduling brands entirely absent from AI responses?

Yes — Weave, eClinicalWorks, and SimplePractice all score 0.0% on both visibility and citation, despite being ranked within the top 10 brands audited.

Is AI visibility in this category driven by a single engine or multiple engines?

All 20 brands in this audit list Google AI Mode as their top engine, with no other engine contributing to visibility or citation scores in the current data.