ProviderQMS

Care operations

Carely vs Lumary

Compare the published scope, cost evidence and buying questions before you commit.

Sources checked 2026-09-24 · Source-based comparison

Vendor-source research, not hands-on tests or a ranked endorsement. ProviderQMS sells document kits and a separate QMS product. No vendor enquiry collection or affiliate source links. How we compare.

The decision to make

Carely and Lumary both appear in our care operations research. Connect the participant record, support delivery, worker activity and financial evidence. Start with the differences below, then test the same essential workflow. We have not used these products hands-on or established an overall winner.

Carely vs Lumary: the published starting point
Buying questionCarelyLumary
What does it do?Carely focuses on the front office of small Australian NDIS practices. It connects enquiries, participant relationships, scheduling and invoicing while leaving PRODA claiming to another tool.Lumary is a configurable Salesforce-based platform for disability and related care organisations. Its disability offer covers participant records, rostering and financial control.
Why consider it here?Vendor explicitly markets its CRM to Australian NDIS providers.Vendor explicitly positions its disability solution for NDIS providers including SIL and SDA.
What is the cost basis?Published from A$97/month Solo, A$197 Practice and A$349 Growth, ex GST; confirm current inclusions.Current price not verified; request a written quote.
What should the demo show?Bring a support-coordination referral from enquiry to appointment and invoice, then show the handoff to the separate claiming tool.Change a SIL participant's support across two sites and inspect roster, service agreement, permissions and financial report.

Compare the evidence, product by product

Carely — published capabilities

  • Enquiry capture and shared inbox
  • Participant pipeline and follow-ups
  • Appointment scheduling and reminders
  • Invoice generation

Source check: 2026-09-24. Published vendor statements, not independent feature testing.

Questions for Carely

  • What participant data is held in the CRM versus claiming tool?
  • How do referral and follow-up permissions work for a team?
  • Can appointment and invoice history be exported with contacts?
Read the full Carely profile ↗

Lumary — published capabilities

  • Participant and care management
  • Workforce rostering and award interpretation
  • Billing and claim workflows
  • Operational and financial reporting

Source check: 2026-09-24. Published vendor statements, not independent feature testing.

Questions for Lumary

  • What configuration and implementation work is included?
  • Which functions require separate products or integrations?
  • How are multi-site permissions and historical changes exported?
Read the full Lumary profile ↗

Run the same scenario in both

Use a fictional recurring community-access service. Change the worker, record the delivered support, correct a note and reconcile the invoice.

  • Trace service agreement and budget to the roster and delivered record.
  • Check what the worker can see, what they must record and how corrections are retained.
  • Change or cancel a service and inspect the effect on timesheets, billing and reporting.
  • Export the participant history with attachments and demonstrate the exit process.

Put the quotes on the same basis

Model active clients, staff logins, sites, service lines, setup and required accounting/payroll connections.

Use the same volumes, currency, GST basis and billing period for both quotes. Include migration, staff training time, required companion subscriptions and the cost of retrieving records at exit. If a charge is unverified, keep it as an open question rather than treating it as free.

How to reach a decision

  1. Choose the tasks your service cannot operate without before either demonstration.
  2. Record demonstrated, partial, not demonstrated or not applicable for each task. Keep the evidence and edition name.
  3. Ask the vendor to resolve every failed essential task in writing; a high average score cannot erase it.
  4. Test a correction, permission change and export. These are part of everyday operations, not just implementation.
  5. Decide using workflow fit, full cost and your team’s capacity to change systems. Retain the written assumptions for review.

What this comparison does not establish

Service-delivery software varies by provider size, module and funding workflow. Scheduling alone does not establish complete NDIS claiming or clinical-record coverage. A capability not mentioned in the reviewed source remains unverified, not absent. This comparison does not certify compliance, integrations, accessibility, security or migration outcomes.