Weave

Name: Weave
Brand: Weave
Rating: 4.4 (1635 reviews)

Leader

Phones, scheduling, reminders, reviews, texting, payments. All on one platform.

Est 2008|Valuation $594.5M|Raised $276.1M|19 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 52K|Web traffic 1.1M|FTEs 1,175|HQ Lehi, Utah, US

MarketsInteractive Voice Response (IVR)Voice & Video Calling (VoIP, UCaaS)SMS & Messaging Review Management

Published Oct 21, 2026

01Common complaints

1) Organizations that do not intend to replace their phone system. - If the requirement is limited to texting, reminders, or forms, an integration-focused vendor may provide better ROI without migrating telephony. 2) Organizations that require deep PBX customization and control. - Community feedback and vendor terms indicate limited on-premise PBX or advanced PBX customization capabilities. 3) Organizations with low tolerance for downtime and unclear support escalation. - For mission-critical telephony, procurement teams should require SLAs, documented escalation paths, and reference checks demonstrating effective incident response. 4) Organizations that require documented third-party attestations as a mandatory compliance condition. - If SOC 2 Type II (vendor-level) is mandatory, Weave’s public materials reviewed here do not clearly confirm such an attestation; request documentation during procurement. 5) Organizations operating in unsupported international regions. - Some community reports indicate the app and services may be region-restricted; validate coverage and roaming/region support for international operations.

Deal disqualifiers (poor fit)

Requires extensive PBX customization or strict control over telephony settings
Has a mandated payments processor and cannot accept integration trade-offs
Requires vendor-level attestations (e.g., SOC 2 Type II) as a procurement gate without vendor-provided documentation

Commonly reported limitations

VoIP reliability and call quality concerns reported in community forums and some product reviews.
Inconsistent support experience reported by a subset of users.
Limited customization in PBX and routing settings for practices requiring advanced telephony control.
Pricing opacity and quote-driven commercial terms may complicate procurement comparisons.

Vendor-acknowledged constraints (contractual/terms signals)

Weave’s VoIP terms indicate that VoIP settings are configured by Weave and limited to Weave’s hosted PBX; porting out requires the account to be active and in good standing and may introduce risk if cancellation occurs prior to completing a port.

Operational transparency

Weave maintains a public status page with components and incident history, which is useful for IT teams evaluating operational risk.

Why some customers leave / churn reasons

Based on negative reviews and forum posts:

VoIP instability or call quality issues.
Slow or inconsistent support during incidents.
Desire for greater customization or a different payments stack.
Frustration during number porting or cancellation.

02Why they buy

Capabilities supported by customer feedback

Integration of telephony and patient communication functions within a single platform: call pop, phone queueing, call recording, and messaging from a unified interface are frequently cited as operationally useful.
Consolidation potential: replacing multiple point solutions with a single platform can simplify workflows for front-desk staff when telephony migration is acceptable.

Claims that require validation

Vendor claims about support quality and adoption figures should be validated through references and requests for metrics or attestations; community feedback on support and reliability is mixed.
Adoption claims (location counts) cited by the vendor were not independently verified in the sources reviewed.

Areas where competitors have advantages

Platforms focused on patient self-service and PMS/EHR synchronization may offer stronger real-time scheduling, intake, and eligibility workflows.
Horizontal CX platforms may offer broader omnichannel inbox and reputation management capabilities if healthcare-specific integrations are not required.

03Field reports

Review platform summary (high-level)

G2: very highly rated on G2.
Capterra: well rated on Capterra, with Customer Service scoring in a moderately rated band relative to ease-of-use.

Caution on incentives: Both platforms contain a mix of organic and incentivized reviews. Incentivized reviews are common in B2B SaaS and can skew positivity.

Selected reviewer statements — positive (paraphrased)

Reviewers report scheduling and handling payments through the platform as straightforward, with initial setup described as manageable.
Multiple reviewers note the phone tree and call recording capabilities as helpful for front-desk operations.
Users have summarized that multiple functions (reminders, reviews, payments, texting, and phones) are available within the platform, reducing the need for separate tools.

Selected reviewer statements — negative / critical (paraphrased)

Some reviewers report intermittent connection issues and VOIP-related frustrations.
Several reviews describe dissatisfaction with support responsiveness after onboarding in some cases.
Community posts characterize recurring VoIP problems and note instances where the vendor attributed issues to customer networks.
Some reviewers feel the product’s simplicity limits available customization and express concern about pricing for limited customization.

Common praise themes

Across G2/Capterra excerpts reviewed:

Interface ease-of-use and relatively rapid staff adoption reported in multiple reviews.
Consolidation of communications (phones + texting + reminders) is cited as operationally helpful.
Call routing/phone tree and call recording are valued in front-desk workflows.
Text-to-pay and payment links are often mentioned as useful for collections and reducing phone-based workflows.

Common complaint themes

Across Capterra and community excerpts reviewed: - Support responsiveness and perceived decline in support attention post-onboarding. - Reliability issues: intermittent glitches, connectivity problems, and voice quality concerns. - Price sensitivity: some reviewers perceive pricing as high for smaller practices. - Customization limits: requests for deeper call routing control, alternative payment processors, or more configuration flexibility. - Offboarding/cancellation friction mentioned in community threads.

Why customers choose Weave over alternatives

From review narratives and comparisons:

Preference for a single vendor to provide phones, messaging, reminders, reviews, and payments rather than integrating multiple vendors.
Peer recommendations within healthcare verticals.
Perceived workflow fit for patient communications (call pop, reminders, integrated texting).

Vendor-published outcomes (limited independent verification)

Weave publishes case studies and vendor comparison pages that include claims of superior integration and customer outcomes. These materials provide directional signals but do not include full methodology or independent audit of the results. Buyers should request references and validate vendor claims when considering those outcomes.

Product release / testimonial-style proof points

Investor relations and product release materials include curated testimonials related to feature launches (for example, softphones and remote calling). These items illustrate product direction but are vendor-selected content and should be treated accordingly.

04Best fit

Company size

Best fit typically appears to be small to mid-sized practices, with small teams per location, and multi-location groups where front-desk workflow standardization matters.

Industries / verticals

Dental practices and DSOs (dental service organizations)
Optometry
Veterinary clinics
Specialty medical practices (dermatology, etc.)

Roles & personas

Decision makers: practice owners, office managers, operations leaders
End users: front desk / scheduling coordinators, billing staff, practice administrators
Influencers: MSPs / IT consultants (especially when VoIP quality and network setup are involved)

Pain points Weave addresses

Missed calls and slow follow-up leading to lost appointments
Phone tag, manual reminders, and no-show rates
Fragmented tools for texting, reminders, reviews, and payments
Slow collections and high A/R due to manual payment chasing

Qualification criteria (good fit)

Willing to consolidate vendors and standardize workflows
Intends to migrate to an integrated telephony and messaging platform rather than bringing a separate phone system
Values ease of deployment and staff adoption over extensive PBX customization

05The pitch

What the product does (objective value proposition)

Weave is a vertically focused communications, patient engagement, and payments platform built primarily for small-to-mid-sized healthcare practices (notably dental, optometry, veterinary, and other specialty/ambulatory practices). It integrates VoIP phones, two-way texting, reminders/recall, reviews/reputation tools, forms/intake, scheduling, and payment requests into a single workflow intended to reduce missed calls/no-shows and speed up collections. A key differentiator (versus many tools that focus on texting and reputation management) is that Weave provides a native phone system integrated with its desktop/mobile apps and practice workflows, including call pop / caller context when integrated with a practice management system.

Target market & positioning

Primary market: SMB healthcare practices (single-location to multi-location groups), with heavy adoption in dental and optometry.
Positioning: positioned as an integrated patient relationship management and communications platform that combines patient communications and payments to reduce vendor sprawl for practices seeking a single platform.

Get a comprehensive analysis of Weave including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

Download full report →