Data & veterinary pricing
UK vet price transparency report 2026
Thousands of practices already publish at least one price, but availability is not the same as comparability. This is our dated view of the evidence.
Veterinary prices are becoming easier to find, but “published” and “easy to compare” are still two different things. A practice might display a consultation fee yet leave vaccination, neutering or prescription charges offline. Two practices might also use the same service name for prices that include different things.
This report records what was visible in the Compare Vet Pricing dataset on 26 September 2026, shortly after the CMA made its final Veterinary Services Market Investigation Order.
The 2026 UK vet-price transparency snapshot
At the review date, CompareVetPricing reported:
- 5,548 UK veterinary practices listed;
- 4,223 practices with at least one published price; and
- 38,242 checked price observations.
On those definitions, about 76% of listed practices had at least one published price. That is broad coverage, but it does not mean 76% publish every useful routine charge. It also does not measure clinical quality.
The live totals will change as prices are added, corrected or rechecked. The current homepage counters should be used for the latest coverage rather than treating this article as a permanent total.
What the consultation-price data shows
Standard consultations are among the most comparable veterinary charges because they usually describe the first routine appointment with a vet. Compare Vet Pricing’s 11 September benchmark used 1,330 comparable, source-backed prices across 80 UK cities and reported a median of the city medians of £57.61.
The local medians still varied. That is one reason a national number should orient an owner, not replace a postcode-level search or a direct confirmation from the practice.
Read our practical guide to UK vet consultation costs, estimates and itemised bills for help using the figures.
Where price gaps remain
Four problems continue to make comparisons harder:
- No published price. Some practices are listed with contact details but no public fee for the service.
- Different inclusions. The same label can include or exclude examinations, medication, laboratory work or follow-up.
- Different animals and weight bands. A dog-neutering price may depend on sex and weight; a generic figure can hide that distinction.
- Old evidence. A price without a checked date can look current long after it has changed.
Compare Vet Pricing says it does not estimate missing prices, separates species and procedure codes, treats “from” prices separately and normally excludes observations older than 365 days from statistics unless revalidated.
What the CMA reforms should change
The final Order creates a staged move towards clearer standard prices, ownership, treatment information and medicine choices. Larger businesses have the earliest deadlines, followed by smaller businesses.
Key owner-facing milestones include:
- December 2026: larger businesses publish the required standard price information.
- March 2027: smaller businesses follow; larger businesses also reach the prescription-fee cap deadline.
- June 2027: larger businesses provide qualifying written estimates and itemised bills.
- September 2027: smaller businesses reach the estimate, bill and prescription requirements.
Publishing more standard prices should increase coverage. The harder work is preserving context: exactly what a fee covers, when it was checked and which practice or business owns the service.
Our full CMA reforms guide explains each change and links to the official documents.
Method and limitations
This is a secondary analysis of figures displayed by CompareVetPricing.co.uk on 26 September 2026. The Paw Post did not receive or audit the underlying row-level database for this report.
Compare Vet Pricing says its sources can include public practice pages, price lists, practice or user submissions, and telephone or email confirmations. Its published methodology says unverified user reports do not enter core statistics until independently reviewed, missing prices are not estimated, and comparisons use source, freshness and like-for-like checks.
The practice-coverage percentage is 4,223 divided by 5,548 and rounded to the nearest whole percentage point. The consultation benchmark is reported using the partner’s own stated sample and calculation date. Different services may have different coverage.
Commercial relationships do not make a price observation correct. Readers should inspect the source and date and confirm current fees with the practice. Our affiliation is disclosed because transparency should apply to publishers too.