Begin with a complete appointment
The useful test starts before the appointment and finishes after payment. A practitioner needs appropriate booking information, relevant records, an efficient way to document the session and a clear next action. The office needs to connect the actual service to the right funding and invoice.
For a multidisciplinary organisation, add a second practitioner and service type to the scenario. Ask which information is shared, which is restricted and how staff can understand the participant’s next step without duplicating records. A well-designed demonstration should make those boundaries visible.
Compare the buying questions
| Decision | splose | Brevity |
|---|---|---|
| Licence basis | Public pricing is per practitioner; check inclusions and chargeable extras | Public pricing is per client; confirm definition, package and minimum |
| Daily workflow | Published scheduling, notes, forms and invoicing scope | Published allied-health solution within a broader operational suite |
| Time-sensitive pricing | A November 2026 change has been announced; confirm start and renewal terms | Confirm billing term and the setup requirements of the proposed tier |
| Decision to prove | Can your practitioner complete the full session workflow comfortably? | Can your required service lines work together without duplicated entry? |
This is an editorial buying framework built from official documentation. It is not a hands-on usability result or a clinical suitability assessment.
Give the practitioner the controls
Book a fictional session, record the service and link the note to the relevant purpose. Ask the practitioner to make a correction, schedule a follow-up and produce a record that another authorised practitioner can understand. Then ask the office to check the funding allocation and invoice.
Include one difficult scenario that reflects your work: a cancelled appointment, a funding change or a document requiring restricted access. Have the vendor show the actual configuration and explain the boundary between a software setting and your own billing decision. A feature label does not authorise a claim.
Put add-ons in the same cost model
Use the same time horizon and GST basis. Record billable practitioners for splose and the quoted billable client definition for Brevity. Include administrative users according to the actual proposal rather than assuming every staff role has the same cost.
Price AI, messaging, payment processing, setup and training separately wherever they apply. If you intend to use AI documentation, ask for a specific explanation of data handling, review controls and how your staff remain accountable for the final record. Do not treat an AI feature as automatically suitable for every clinical or participant context.
Our decision rule
Choose the next trial on the strength of a practitioner completing the real workflow and an office user reconciling it. Request an export of a fictional record with attachments before the trial ends. Write down any manual workaround, its frequency and who will do it. The two-year cost tool helps compare the quotes, but your documented workflow requirements decide whether either proposal belongs on the final shortlist.
Sources behind this comparison
- splose: pricing · checked 2026-09-23
- splose: announced 1 November 2026 pricing change · checked 2026-09-23
- Brevity: allied health software · checked 2026-09-23
- Brevity: pricing and package conditions · checked 2026-09-23
Confirm current terms with the vendor. An unanswered question does not establish that a feature is absent.