Scratchpay

Name: Scratchpay
Brand: Scratch Financial
Rating: 4.5 (1614 reviews)

Scratch Financial is the world's simplest patient financing solution.

Est 2016|Valuation $160M|Raised $108.1M|3791 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 4K|Web traffic 350K|FTEs 97

MarketsInvoicing & Payment Processing

Published Oct 15, 2026

01Common complaints

If broad provider acceptance is required

If financing must be accepted across many providers without clinic enrollment in a partner network, a more broadly accepted product such as a widely issued healthcare credit product may be preferable; that alternative can carry deferred-interest risks.

If borrowers are likely to miss promotional deadlines or have difficulty with payment timing

Public reviews indicate that borrowers who do not meet promotional pay-off conditions can experience significant interest costs. Clinics with patient populations that are likely to miss such deadlines may prefer financing products with different fee structures or stronger no-late-fee features.

If enterprise-grade security documentation and controls are required

If the procurement process requires downloadable SOC 2 reports, ISO certificates, SSO/SAML, SCIM, and detailed audit logging documentation, the vendor’s public documentation appears limited; request documentation directly or consider vendors with more mature, publicly documented security portals.

If the clinic is highly sensitive to transaction economics

A 5% provider fee on financed volume may be unattractive for low-margin practices unless it demonstrably increases case acceptance and net revenue. Alternative financing or in-house payment plans may be more cost-effective in some cases.

If operating in restricted jurisdictions or where surcharging rules apply

Plan availability and surcharging permissions vary by jurisdiction; verify state-level restrictions and plan eligibility for the clinic’s operating locations.

1) If broad provider acceptance is required - If financing must be accepted across many providers without clinic enrollment in a partner network, a more broadly accepted product such as a widely issued healthcare credit product may be preferable; that alternative can carry deferred-interest risks. 2) If borrowers are likely to miss promotional deadlines or have difficulty with payment timing - Public reviews indicate that borrowers who do not meet promotional pay-off conditions can experience significant interest costs. Clinics with patient populations that are likely to miss such deadlines may prefer financing products with different fee structures or stronger no-late-fee features. 3) If enterprise-grade security documentation and controls are required - If the procurement process requires downloadable SOC 2 reports, ISO certificates, SSO/SAML, SCIM, and detailed audit logging documentation, the vendor’s public documentation appears limited; request documentation directly or consider vendors with more mature, publicly documented security portals. 4) If the clinic is highly sensitive to transaction economics - A 5% provider fee on financed volume may be unattractive for low-margin practices unless it demonstrably increases case acceptance and net revenue. Alternative financing or in-house payment plans may be more cost-effective in some cases. 5) If operating in restricted jurisdictions or where surcharging rules apply - Plan availability and surcharging permissions vary by jurisdiction; verify state-level restrictions and plan eligibility for the clinic’s operating locations.

Known limitations / risks surfaced in sources

Potential confusion about payoff totals and interest timing, per consumer reviews; this increases support workload and reputational risk.
Payment method and integration reliability concerns were reported in at least one public complaint (Canada PAD unlinking example), indicating potential operational risk across certain integrations.
Security documentation gap: SOC 2 Type II is referenced in some vendor-branded marketing, but a publicly available SOC 2 report or detailed attestations were not located on the primary domain; enterprise buyers should request evidence.

- Potential confusion about payoff totals and interest timing, per consumer reviews; this increases support workload and reputational risk. - Payment method and integration reliability concerns were reported in at least one public complaint (Canada PAD unlinking example), indicating potential operational risk across certain integrations. - Security documentation gap: SOC 2 Type II is referenced in some vendor-branded marketing, but a publicly available SOC 2 report or detailed attestations were not located on the primary domain; enterprise buyers should request evidence.

Roadmap visibility

No public product roadmap with dates or feature timelines was found in the sources reviewed.

Scale limitations

No public scale/performance SLAs, uptime metrics, or incident history were found in the sources reviewed; prospective buyers should request operational performance metrics and SLAs during vendor evaluation.

02Why they buy

Unique selling point candidates supported by vendor materials (vendor-reported):

Veterinary-focused financing and clinic workflow integrations (PIMS integrations and reconciliation features).
Public presentation of clinic-side pricing for financing and processing, which supports initial cost comparisons.
Disclosure of a bank partner for loan issuance and public references to lending registrations and identifiers.

Competitor strengths noted in public materials:

CareCredit: broad provider acceptance and a reusable consumer credit model.
Sunbit: vendor-marketed options that emphasize reduced late-fee exposure in some programs.
Cherry: vendor marketing emphasizes consumer-facing 0% options and practice experience.

Unique selling point candidates supported by vendor materials (vendor-reported): - Veterinary-focused financing and clinic workflow integrations (PIMS integrations and reconciliation features). - Public presentation of clinic-side pricing for financing and processing, which supports initial cost comparisons. - Disclosure of a bank partner for loan issuance and public references to lending registrations and identifiers. Competitor strengths noted in public materials: - CareCredit: broad provider acceptance and a reusable consumer credit model. - Sunbit: vendor-marketed options that emphasize reduced late-fee exposure in some programs. - Cherry: vendor marketing emphasizes consumer-facing 0% options and practice experience.

03Field reports

Review-platform and consumer review signals (high-level)

Trustpilot: a multi-star average rating appears on the Trustpilot listing, with user narratives describing both positive experiences (access to financing for vet bills) and negative experiences (questions about interest/fees and customer service).
BBB (Business Profile + reviews): an accredited profile with mixed reviews; complaints include operational/technical and support issues, including disputes about pre-authorized payment handling and integration concerns in Canada.
Other consumer complaint sites show a small number of negative reports.

Important gap: The vendor has limited presence on classic B2B SaaS review platforms such as G2 and Capterra, which may reflect the product’s consumer-lending orientation rather than absence of B2B use.

- Trustpilot: a multi-star average rating appears on the Trustpilot listing, with user narratives describing both positive experiences (access to financing for vet bills) and negative experiences (questions about interest/fees and customer service). - BBB (Business Profile + reviews): an accredited profile with mixed reviews; complaints include operational/technical and support issues, including disputes about pre-authorized payment handling and integration concerns in Canada. - Other consumer complaint sites show a small number of negative reports. Important gap: The vendor has limited presence on classic B2B SaaS review platforms such as G2 and Capterra, which may reflect the product’s consumer-lending orientation rather than absence of B2B use.

Direct quotes (positive)

"We used Scratchpay to pay a vet bill we couldn't afford at the time, letting us pay monthly payments instead."
"My dog had to have emergency major dental surgery… I was able to apply for & approved for a Scratchpay loan. Payments were affordable."

Direct quotes (negative / critical)

"I appreciated Scratchpay being available… however… lack of transparency in the payment amounts…"
"Interest rate is ridiculous."
"Customer service is terrible and the late charges and fees are a complete rip off…"
A reviewer referenced a system error that unlinked a pre-authorized debit payment method and noted concerns about an older integration used in Canada.

Common themes in reviews: why customers choose Scratch

Emergency access to funds for veterinary care when savings or credit limits are insufficient.
Ease of application and perceived speed of approval decisions.
Availability of promotional interest-waived options in some plans, though understanding of promotional mechanics varies among borrowers.

Common churn/avoidance reasons

Complaints about interest when promotional conditions are not met or when payoffs are mistimed.
Perceived lack of transparency about payment amounts and interest calculations.
Negative experiences with support responsiveness and disputes about fees or late charges.

Vendor-published outcomes for clinics (payments)

Vendor materials include a published example stating that certain veterinary practices realized annual savings based on a baseline processor comparison; the published example presents average savings for practices that switched to the vendor’s Checkout product.

Critical evaluation:

The savings example is vendor-published and likely depends on baseline processor pricing, card mix, presentment methods, and practice-specific payment behavior. The methodology and underlying assumptions are not provided publicly; independent verification is recommended.

- Vendor materials include a published example stating that certain veterinary practices realized annual savings based on a baseline processor comparison; the published example presents average savings for practices that switched to the vendor’s Checkout product. Critical evaluation: - The savings example is vendor-published and likely depends on baseline processor pricing, card mix, presentment methods, and practice-specific payment behavior. The methodology and underlying assumptions are not provided publicly; independent verification is recommended.

Partnerships as evidence of market penetration

The vendor announced a payments partnership with an online pharmacy/platform to use the vendor’s Checkout service for online payment processing and reporting.

Critical evaluation:

Partnerships indicate channel activity and integration options, but do not by themselves validate ROI, integration quality, or user satisfaction.

Missing: independently verified case studies

No third-party audited case studies or independently verified ROI analyses were identified in the public sources reviewed.

04Best fit

For veterinary practices (B2B)

Company size: Small to mid-sized veterinary hospitals (independent or small groups) up through larger groups if integrations and enterprise controls meet requirements.
Operational profile: Clinics that want to improve case acceptance and reduce accounts receivable by offering financing at checkout.
Tech stack: Practices using supported practice management systems and seeking integrated payment reconciliation (vendor lists multiple PIMS integrations in marketing materials).
Decision makers: Practice owners, hospital managers, finance/operations leaders.
End users: Front desk staff, practice managers, billing teams.

- Company size: Small to mid-sized veterinary hospitals (independent or small groups) up through larger groups if integrations and enterprise controls meet requirements. - Operational profile: Clinics that want to improve case acceptance and reduce accounts receivable by offering financing at checkout. - Tech stack: Practices using supported practice management systems and seeking integrated payment reconciliation (vendor lists multiple PIMS integrations in marketing materials). - Decision makers: Practice owners, hospital managers, finance/operations leaders. - End users: Front desk staff, practice managers, billing teams.

For pet owners (B2C)

Pet owners facing unexpected or planned veterinary bills within the typical range of vet financing who need immediate financing with a rapid decision and who can reasonably meet repayment terms and promotional conditions to minimize interest costs.

05The pitch

What the product does (core value proposition)

Key product lines visible in vendor materials include:

Scratch Pay (installment financing/payment plans for borrowers; clinics pay a provider fee).
Scratch Checkout (payment processing for practices with volume-based tiers and per-transaction fixed fees).

Scratch Pay is a fintech platform offering care-now, pay-later financing, primarily for veterinary care, along with B2B payment products for clinics (payment processing, text-to-pay, and integrations with veterinary practice management systems). Vendor materials emphasize relatively short application-to-decision times, installment plans with stated terms, and a model in which clinics receive payment up front while Scratch manages borrower repayment. Key product lines visible in vendor materials include: - Scratch Pay (installment financing/payment plans for borrowers; clinics pay a provider fee). - Scratch Checkout (payment processing for practices with volume-based tiers and per-transaction fixed fees).

Target market and market positioning

Primary vertical: Veterinary practices (U.S. and Canada; some availability exceptions are stated).
Secondary / historical expansion: Vendor and press coverage indicate expansion beyond veterinary into elective human healthcare financing such as dental, vision, and chiropractic, though the vendor's current public web experience appears primarily focused on veterinary use cases.

Positioning themes:

Vendor marketing includes statements such as no hidden fees and no deferred interest; materials also reference rapid decisioning and broad approval ranges.
For clinics: the vendor describes integrations with practice management systems and reconciliation features to support operational workflows.

- Primary vertical: Veterinary practices (U.S. and Canada; some availability exceptions are stated). - Secondary / historical expansion: Vendor and press coverage indicate expansion beyond veterinary into elective human healthcare financing such as dental, vision, and chiropractic, though the vendor's current public web experience appears primarily focused on veterinary use cases. Positioning themes: - Vendor marketing includes statements such as no hidden fees and no deferred interest; materials also reference rapid decisioning and broad approval ranges. - For clinics: the vendor describes integrations with practice management systems and reconciliation features to support operational workflows.

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

Download full report →