How the scheduling workflows differ
The best fit depends on how you want patients to reach your calendar and how much of the surrounding administration you want your scheduling tool to handle.
Online Booking: Who Can Book Your Time?
A public booking page saves back-and-forth, but psychotherapy practices often need different rules for people making first contact and those already in treatment.
Acuity’s approach
Acuity lets businesses configure availability, appointment types and private scheduling links. Those controls can limit which times or services appear to clients, and its client accounts support repeat booking.
Theravo’s approach
Theravo provides appointment permissions for new patients, existing patients, both groups or manual booking only. Public availability can be separated from appointments shown in the patient portal. Therapists can also suggest an appointment directly or keep time internal, without publishing it as an open slot.
Which approach fits? Acuity suits teams that want flexible general scheduling settings. Theravo is useful when protecting time for existing patients is part of the daily workflow.
Related Theravo guide → · Acuity Help Center ↗
Initial Consultations Shouldn't Always Be Automatic
An initial enquiry can require an administrative review before a time is confirmed. A visible slot does not always need to mean an instant booking.
Acuity’s approach
Acuity centres on self-service scheduling. Availability, appointment-type visibility, intake forms and booking limits give a practice ways to shape that experience.
Theravo’s approach
With Theravo, a prospective patient can submit an appointment request. The therapist reviews it, then approves or declines it. Only an approved request becomes a confirmed appointment. This is a scheduling decision by the practice; Theravo does not assess clinical suitability.
Which approach fits? Direct self-booking is convenient when every available slot may be confirmed immediately. A request workflow fits practices that need to review first contacts before reserving clinical time.
Related Theravo guide →
Scheduling Weekly and Fortnightly Therapy Sessions
Regular sessions should stay in the calendar without appearing as open public availability. Both products support recurring appointments.
Acuity’s approach
Acuity lets clients book recurring appointments and supports repeat scheduling. Its general-purpose calendar is appropriate when recurring visits are one of several service patterns.
Theravo’s approach
Theravo supports weekly and fortnightly therapy rhythms. A practice can manage one appointment, future appointments or a complete recurring series as circumstances change. For example, a patient attends every Tuesday at 15:00; that time stays reserved without being offered publicly.
Which approach fits? Neither product has a monopoly on recurring bookings. Theravo puts the ongoing patient relationship and its reserved time at the centre of calendar administration.
Related Theravo guide → · Acuity Help Center ↗
More Control Over Appointment Capacity
A practice may need to make some appointment types available to specific patients while keeping an overall cap on bookings.
Acuity’s approach
Acuity offers scheduling and availability limits. We could not verify an equivalent to Theravo’s patient booking-group workflow in its public documentation, so this is a difference in documented approach rather than a claim that Acuity cannot do it.
Theravo’s approach
Theravo’s administrative booking groups can have individual limits and share a capacity limit. Patient-specific restrictions determine which options each person sees. For example, several existing patients may each have access to a limited follow-up slot pool while the practice caps the total number of such bookings that day. Separate groups can serve different administrative needs.
Which approach fits? Booking groups organise access and capacity; they are not based on diagnoses. They are useful when a single public availability rule is too broad.
Related Theravo guide →
Let Patients Manage Their Appointments
Self-service can reduce routine messages without removing the practice’s control over eligible times and cancellation rules.
Acuity’s approach
Acuity offers client accounts, where returning clients can view and manage bookings under the practice’s configured policies.
Theravo’s approach
Theravo’s patient portal shows upcoming appointments and eligible booking options, including times reserved for existing patients. Patients can request or make permitted changes and cancellations under the rules the practice has set. Access to a portal does not expose every appointment type or all internal availability.
Which approach fits? Both approaches reduce administrative back-and-forth. Theravo’s portal is especially relevant when the permitted choices differ between new and existing patients.
Related Theravo guide →
Privacy Matters in Psychotherapy
Scheduling data can reveal that someone is in contact with a psychotherapy practice. Each practice should assess its own legal obligations and the data it chooses to collect.
Acuity’s approach
Acuity operates within Squarespace’s data-processing framework and offers HIPAA-related support on Premium. European practices should review its contractual documents, subprocessors, data transfers and their own GDPR obligations. This comparison does not suggest that Acuity is inherently non-compliant.
Theravo’s approach
Theravo says its core application and database are hosted in Germany. Its scheduling workflow is designed around data minimisation: it does not require access to therapists’ private email inboxes, diagnoses or therapy notes. A dedicated Data Processing Agreement is available. German hosting alone does not establish GDPR compliance for every practice.
Which approach fits? Acuity may fit a practice comfortable evaluating a broad platform’s data flows. Theravo offers a narrower scheduling scope and German-hosted core infrastructure for practices that prefer that arrangement.
Related Theravo guide → · Acuity Help Center ↗ · Privacy policy · Data Processing Agreement
Payments, Packages and Subscriptions
Payment requirements can decide the choice as quickly as calendar features.
Acuity’s approach
Acuity connects to Stripe, Square and PayPal, and supports packages, memberships and subscriptions on eligible plans. Subscriptions require Stripe or Square. This breadth can matter when a practice already relies on a particular processor or sells several kinds of service.
Theravo’s approach
Theravo currently documents Stripe payments, paid appointment types and session packages. Those tools cover a patient paying for an appointment or an agreed package of sessions. Recurring patient subscription billing is not described here as generally available.
Which approach fits? Acuity has the broader documented commerce toolkit. Theravo covers a more focused payment workflow tied to psychotherapy appointments.
Related Theravo guide → · Acuity Help Center ↗
Calendar Integrations and Daily Administration
Integration needs are a practical reason to choose Acuity.
Acuity’s approach
Acuity supports external Google and Outlook calendar synchronisation, video meeting integrations, mobile administration tools and text reminders on selected plans. Its larger third-party ecosystem can reduce duplicate administration for practices already committed to those tools.
Theravo’s approach
Theravo currently uses its own practice calendar for scheduling and administration. It can send .ics calendar invitations, but an invitation is not bidirectional synchronisation with Google or Outlook. SMS is not advertised as a standard Theravo feature on its public pricing page.
Which approach fits? Choose Acuity if external calendar sync or a wide integration catalogue is essential. Choose Theravo if an internal practice calendar and a focused scheduling workflow are sufficient.
Related Theravo guide → · Acuity Help Center ↗
Acuity vs Theravo: Pricing
The published monthly prices use different currencies and cover different plan structures. Compare the features you need as well as the headline amount.
Acuity’s approach
Acuity lists Starter at $20, Standard at $34 and Premium at $69 per month with monthly billing. Annual billing currently lowers the displayed monthly equivalent. Premium includes additional capabilities, including HIPAA-related support.
Theravo’s approach
Theravo’s public homepage lists an introductory offer of €49 per month for early participating practices. Check the current offer and the scope of included features before subscribing.
Which approach fits? Acuity Starter has the lower numerical starting price, but the products and currencies differ. Prices were reviewed on 26 October 2026; billing periods, exchange rates and applicable taxes can change the comparison.
Related Theravo guide → · Official Acuity pricing ↗
Acuity figures are USD monthly-billing prices; annual billing differs. Theravo’s price is an introductory EUR offer. Applicable taxes and payment processing fees may be extra. Check each official pricing page before deciding.
Sources and review notes
Acuity feature and pricing descriptions were checked against its official pricing, feature and help pages. Theravo descriptions were checked against its public pages and current product documentation.
Acuity features · Acuity Help Center · Theravo features
This is an independent comparison based on publicly available information. Theravo is not affiliated with Acuity Scheduling or Squarespace. Features and prices may change.