Valant does not publish a price, and that is informative

What is published

Checked 29 July 2026. Valant does not publish a standard per-provider monthly rate for its core EHR. Its published materials describe pricing as customised, based on provider count, provider type — therapist, prescriber, supervisor roles are priced differently — workflow requirements and optional modules.

One specific figure does appear in published materials: enabling access to clinical content at provider-level permissions is stated at $27 per provider per month. That is a module price rather than a platform price.

We are not going to estimate the rest. Any comparison page quoting a confident Valant monthly figure is guessing, and a guess presented as a price is worse than no number.

What quote-based pricing tells you

It is a signal about the buyer, not a trick. Vendors publish prices when the product is bought by individuals making fast decisions, and quote when it is bought by organisations through a procurement process with variable configurations.

Valant sits in the second category, and its product reflects that: group practice management, supervision structures, prescriber workflows, role-based configuration and reporting for organisations large enough to need it. If you are a solo clinician, the absence of a published price is itself the answer to whether you are the target buyer.

How to evaluate a quote

If you do go through the process, the questions that determine your actual cost:

1. What is the per-provider rate by role? Therapist, prescriber and supervisor seats are frequently priced differently.
2. Which modules are included and which are extra? Get the full module list with prices, not just the ones discussed.
3. What is the implementation fee? Enterprise platforms commonly charge for onboarding, and it can be substantial.
4. What is the contract term and the escalation clause? Multi-year terms with annual increases are common.
5. What happens when a clinician leaves? Whether seats can be reduced mid-term matters a great deal in a practice with turnover.
6. What are the data export terms? Ask before signing, not at renewal.

Those questions are worth asking of any vendor, including us. They matter more where the price is negotiated, because a negotiated price has more places to hide.

Where Valant fits

Larger group practices. The product is built for organisations with multiple clinician types, supervision hierarchies and reporting needs. That is genuinely different from what a solo-focused product does, and a large practice running solo-oriented software usually knows it.

Prescriber-heavy organisations. Psychiatric workflows, medication management and the associated documentation are long-standing strengths in this segment.

Practices needing configuration. Where workflows differ by programme or by role, a configurable platform is worth more than a simpler one.

Where we differ

We publish our price. $39 Starter, $69 Pro, $69 plus $49 per additional clinician for Group. You can decide whether that works without talking to anyone. For practices below the size where configuration matters, that transparency is itself a feature.

Scale. We are built for solo practices through small and mid-sized groups. A fifty-clinician organisation with multiple programmes and complex supervision structures is not who we designed for, and we would rather say that than sell into a poor fit.

Documentation architecture. The consistent argument — notes written against the active treatment plan, codes proposed only with supporting documentation. See the golden thread.

Who should choose Valant

• Group practices at a scale where configuration and role-based workflows matter.
• Prescriber-heavy organisations.
• Practices with procurement processes that expect a quote and a contract.

Who should look at Weft

• Solo practices and small groups wanting a published price and same-day start.
• Practices where an enterprise sales cycle is disproportionate to the decision.
• Practices whose main problem is documentation exposure rather than organisational complexity.

Comparing a quote against a published price

The methodological trap worth naming. A quote arrives as a single monthly figure; a published price arrives as a plan plus add-ons. Comparing them directly usually flatters whichever one bundled more, and the difference is invisible unless you decompose both.

The fix is to build one list of everything your practice actually needs — telehealth, claims, eligibility, ePrescribe, documentation, measurement, supervision routing, reporting, the seats — and price that identical list against each vendor. It takes an hour and it is the only comparison that means anything.

Implementation is part of the cost

Enterprise platforms generally involve an implementation project rather than a signup, and that project has both a fee and a time cost that rarely appear in comparisons.

Expect configuration workshops, data migration planning, staff training and a phased go-live. For an organisation with complex workflows that is appropriate and probably necessary — configuring a platform properly is why you chose a configurable platform. For a small practice it is disproportionate, and the internal time cost frequently exceeds the licence difference.

Ask for the implementation fee, the expected timeline, who does the work, and what is expected of your staff. A quote without those numbers is incomplete.

When you have genuinely outgrown solo-oriented software

Worth naming the signals, because the transition point is real and practices often pass it without noticing.

• You maintain a spreadsheet alongside the EHR because it cannot answer a question you need answered weekly.
• Supervision routing is handled by people remembering to do it.
• Different programmes need different workflows and you are forcing them into one.
• Role-based access is approximated by trust rather than enforced by configuration.
• Nobody can produce practice-wide numbers without manual assembly.

Two or more of those, at meaningful scale, is the case for a configurable enterprise platform — and it is a case we would not argue against, because it is not what we built.

What we would tell you to ask for

• A reference customer at your size and specialty mix, and a call without the vendor on it.
• A written configuration scope so it is clear what is included versus a change request later.
• The full module price list, not just the modules discussed.
• Export terms in writing before signature.

The honest summary

If you are large enough that a procurement process feels proportionate, Valant is a serious option and we are probably not. If signing up for software should take ten minutes, the reverse is true. The size threshold between those two states is roughly where our product stops being the right answer.

Ask about the roadmap in writing

With configurable enterprise platforms, "that is on the roadmap" is a common answer during evaluation. Get anything you are relying on committed in the contract with a date, or price the product as though the feature does not exist. Both are reasonable; assuming it will arrive is not.

Pricing verified 29 July 2026 against the vendors' own published pages: Valant plans and pricing; Valant EHR pricing. Prices change, promotional rates are frequently displayed, and quoted figures may exclude add-ons, payment processing and per-transaction fees. Confirm current pricing directly before making a decision. Capability descriptions reflect publicly available information and are not an audit of either product. Weft pricing is our own published rate.