What pet parents praise and complain about in Google reviews of vet clinics (2026)

• The typical vet clinic listing on Google has 91 reviews, and among listings with reviews the typical rating is 4.7 stars. Nearly 9 in 10 listings with reviews are rated 4.5 or higher.
• Of the 437,952 reviews behind those listings, about 86 in 100 are five stars. About 6 in 100 are one or two stars.
• Nearly half of the 2,810 clinics with reviews received fewer than 12 new reviews in the past year, which is under one a month. About 1 in 7 received none.
• About 6 in 10 reviews from the past year at those clinics have a reply from the clinic. Unhappy reviews got replies about as often as happy ones, and a little faster.
• We read every one of the 10,465 one- and two-star reviews with text. Nearly half were about how staff treated the pet parent, and more than 4 in 10 were about money.
• Across all the one- and two-star reviews with text at those clinics, about half mention money. Only about 1 in 10 five-star reviews do.
• Five-star reviews name the vet (“Dr” and a name) nearly four times as often as one- and two-star reviews do.
• We counted what reviews say. We make no claim about the quality of anyone’s veterinary care.

We read 3,051 vet listings on Google Maps across Australia. Each listing is one clinic’s entry on Google Maps. 2,810 of the listings have at least one review. Among those 2,810, the typical rating (the middle one, if you line them all up) is 4.7 stars. Half of those 2,810 listings sit between 4.6 and 4.9. Nearly 9 in 10 are rated 4.5 or higher. Only about 1 in 40 is rated below 4.0.

Across all 3,051 listings, the typical listing has 91 reviews. A quarter of listings have 15 or fewer. A quarter have more than 203. 19 listings have 1,000 reviews or more.

A perfect 5.0 mostly goes with a small number of reviews. About 1 in 5 listings with reviews is rated 5.0, but 6 in 10 of those have fewer than 20 reviews. Among listings with 100 to 499 reviews, only about 1 in 20 holds a 5.0.

Across all 3,051 listings there are 437,952 reviews. About 86 in 100 of them are five stars. About 5 in 100 are one star, about 1 in 100 are two stars and about 1 in 100 are three stars.

Google also shows a row of short phrases drawn from each listing’s reviews (our data provider calls them place topics). Across vet listings, the one shown most often is “caring staff”, on about 1 in 3 listings. The second most common is “euthanasia”, on about 1 in 4.

The numbers: 3,357 listings returned for the category veterinarian in Australia; 3,051 in scope; 2,810 with at least one review. Rating, 2,810 listings: median 4.7, quartiles 4.6 and 4.9; 4.5 or higher 2,444 (87.0%); 5.0 548 (19.5%), of which 329 (60.0%) have fewer than 20 reviews; below 4.0 73 (2.6%); rated 5.0 among listings with 100 to 499 reviews 63 of 1,349 (4.7%). Reviews per listing, 3,051 listings: median 91, quartiles 15 and 203, 1,000 or more 19. Star mix of 437,952 reviews: five 86.2%, four 6.0%, three 1.4%, two 0.9%, one 5.4%. Review phrases: “caring staff” on 960 listings (31.5%), “euthanasia” on 724 (23.7%).

For this part we used all 2,810 clinics with at least one review. For each clinic we counted the reviews first posted in the 12 months before 22 October 2026.

The typical clinic received 12, one a month. Nearly half of the clinics received fewer than 12. About 1 in 7 received none at all in the year. At the other end, about the same number, 1 in 7, received 48 or more, which is four a month or more.

We also looked at how old each clinic’s newest review was. For about 1 in 4 clinics, the newest review was more than three months old.

Across the 2,810 clinics, those that get reviews often and those that get them rarely have much the same typical rating. Clinics with under one new review a month had a typical rating of 4.8, clinics with one to four a month 4.7, and clinics with four or more 4.8. That is a pattern across 2,810 clinics. It does not show that one causes the other.

The numbers: 2,810 clinics. Reviews first posted 22 October 2025 to 22 October 2026, per clinic: median 12, quartiles 3 and 29. Fewer than 12: 1,365 (48.6%). None: 379 (13.5%). 48 or more: 398 (14.2%); 156 clinics reached the 100-review limit inside the year, so their counts are lower than the truth. Newest review more than 90 days old on 22 October 2026: 736 (26.2%). Typical rating by new reviews a month: under one, 1,365 clinics, 4.8; one to four, 1,047 clinics, 4.7; four or more, 398 clinics, 4.8. These cover every clinic with reviews, so there is no sampling margin.

A reply is the clinic’s public answer, shown under the review on Google. Of the reviews first posted in the past year at the 2,810 clinics, about 6 in 10 have one. Clinics replied to one- and two-star reviews about as often as to five-star reviews: 59 in 100 against 62 in 100.

Replies came quickly. Of the replies to reviews from the past year, half came within 3 days of the review and about 3 in 4 within a week. Replies to one- and two-star reviews came a little faster: half within 2 days.

Not every clinic replies. More than 1 in 4 of the 2,810 clinics had no reply on any of the reviews we collected. 1,255 of the 2,810 clinics received at least one one- or two-star review in the past year. Of those 1,255, nearly half replied to every one of them, and nearly 1 in 3 replied to none.

The numbers: reviews first posted 22 October 2025 to 22 October 2026 at the 2,810 clinics: 37,673 of 60,656 replied (62.1%); one and two stars 2,071 of 3,495 (59.3%); five stars 34,444 of 55,150 (62.5%). Delay for those replies: median 3.0 days, within 7 days 28,841 of 37,673 (76.6%); replies to one- and two-star reviews median 2.0 days. Clinics with no reply on any collected review: 782 of 2,810. Clinics with at least one one- or two-star review in the year: 1,255 of 2,810; replied to all of them 580 (46.2%), to some 275 (21.9%), to none 400 (31.9%).

From here on we look at what reviews say. Of the 193,998 reviews from the 2,810 clinics, 150,035 have text. To sort them, we used fixed lists of words for each theme. For example, a review “mentions money” if it uses a word such as price, cost, bill, fee or quote, or a dollar amount. We then had samples of the matches read one by one, in the same way, to check that each list catches what it should. Where a list did badly in that check, we do not use it.

Most five-star reviews talk about the staff: about 7 in 10 use a word for them, such as vet, nurse, reception or team. About 1 in 6 five-star reviews names the vet (“Dr” and a name), nearly four times the rate in one- and two-star reviews. We checked 40 matches, 20 from four- and five-star reviews and 20 from one- and two-star reviews, and all 40 named a vet. About 8 in 10 of the 2,810 clinics had at least one review that named a vet.

About 1 in 6 five-star reviews mentions that something was explained, that the vet took time, or that the pet parent was kept informed (we checked 20 of the happy ones: 17 were really about that). About 1 in 4 five-star reviews uses the word “recommend”.

Five-star reviews are short. The typical one is 27 words long.

The numbers: text reviews at the 2,810 clinics, all dates: five stars 133,246, one and two stars 10,469, all 150,035. In five-star text reviews: staff words 92,753 (69.6%); names a vet 22,676 (17.0%), against 478 of 10,469 one- and two-star (4.6%), check 40 of 40; explained 21,573 (16.2%), check 17 of 20; “recommend” 33,648 (25.3%). Clinics with a review naming a vet: 2,277 of 2,810. Typical length: five stars 27 words, one and two stars 82 words.

10,465 of the reviews we collected are one- or two-star reviews with text. Unhappy pet parents write at length: the typical one is 82 words, three times as long as a typical five-star review.

An AI model read every one of them in full, working to written definitions we set (see the method section), and noted what each one was about. A review can be about more than one thing, and 3 in 4 were.

What the 10,465 reviews were about:

• How staff treated the pet parent (rude, dismissive, uncaring or unprofessional): 4,923, nearly half.
• Money (the price, the bill, a fee or a quote): 4,471, more than 4 in 10.
• The diagnosis or the treatment (the reviewer disagrees with it, or blames the clinic for the pet’s condition): 3,074, nearly 3 in 10. We record this only. We make no judgment about who is right.
• Communication (not explained, not listened to, not kept informed): 2,878, more than 1 in 4.
• The phone, booking or the front desk: 2,125, about 1 in 5.
• A pet’s death or saying goodbye: 1,608, about 1 in 7. Section 6 has more.
• No appointment, or turned away: 1,598, about 1 in 7.
• A cost that was not explained before treatment, or a bill that came as a surprise: 792, about 1 in 13.
• How the pet was handled (roughly, or so that it was stressed): 745, about 1 in 14.
• Waiting: 728, about 1 in 14.

We also noted each review’s main subject. The three most common were close together: how staff treated the pet parent (20 in 100), money (19 in 100) and the diagnosis or treatment (18 in 100).

Our word lists point the same way. About half of one- and two-star reviews mention money, against about 1 in 10 five-star reviews. More than 1 in 5 one- and two-star reviews use words such as rude, dismissive or unprofessional. Almost no five-star review does.

Money comes up in happy reviews too. Of all the reviews that mention it, about 7 in 10 are four or five stars. When an unhappy review gives a dollar amount, the typical amount is $300.

The past year looks much the same. Of the 3,116 one- and two-star reviews from the past year, 47 in 100 were about how staff treated the pet parent and 43 in 100 were about money. Communication came up more often in the past year: in about 1 in 3, against more than 1 in 4 across all dates.

The numbers: every one- and two-star text review at the 2,810 clinics, read in full: 10,465 (one star 9,102, two stars 1,363). Treated badly by staff 4,923 (47.0%); money 4,471 (42.7%); diagnosis or treatment disputed 3,074 (29.4%); communication 2,878 (27.5%); phone, booking or front desk 2,125 (20.3%); a pet’s death 1,608 (15.4%); no appointment or turned away 1,598 (15.3%); other 1,017 (9.7%); cost not explained or a surprise 792 (7.6%); how the pet was handled 745 (7.1%); waiting 728 (7.0%); too short to tell 446 (4.3%). Main subject: staff 2,130 (20.4%), money 1,969 (18.8%), diagnosis or treatment 1,874 (17.9%). More than one topic: 7,746 (74.0%). Read twice, 150 at random: same main subject 129; agreed on money 142 and on staff treatment 135. Word lists over the 10,469 one- and two-star text reviews as collected (four appear on two listings): money 5,094 (48.7%), five stars 12,849 of 133,246 (9.6%); rude or dismissive 2,396 (22.9%), five stars 450 (0.3%). Reviews mentioning money that are four or five stars: 13,631 of 19,240 (70.8%). Dollar amounts in one- and two-star reviews: 4,610 amounts in 2,270 reviews, median $300. Past year, 3,116 read in full: staff 1,467 (47.1%), money 1,342 (43.1%), communication 1,080 (34.7%).

This part is for anyone who wants to check our work. Every figure above comes from saved files, and we keep the raw files, the scripts and the word lists.

The listings. We read every Google Maps business listing in Australia that carries the category “veterinarian”, from DataForSEO’s business listings database (a commercial copy of Google Maps listings), on 22 October 2026 between 02:23 and 03:23 (AEDT). It returned 3,357 listings. We kept 3,051. We left out 127 listings whose main category is something else (such as a pet shop or a cattery), 100 listings for a single vet rather than a clinic, and 79 outside Australia. The provider last refreshed these listings between May 2023 and 8 October 2026, and 88% of them on or after 1 September 2026, so the listing figures describe the clinics as they were a few weeks before we read them.

The clinics. We collected the newest reviews of every one of the 2,810 kept listings that have at least one review. We bought the reviews through treg (a service that resells data from many providers), from one provider for 2,801 clinics and, for 9 clinics, from a second one with the same Google data. The collection ran in three parts on 22 October 2026: 130 clinics between 03:24 and 04:26 (AEDT), after which both providers stopped answering, 870 between 11:01 and 11:21, and the other 1,810 between 11:54 and 12:33. Every one of the 2,810 clinics has an answer.

The reviews. For each clinic we took the newest 100 reviews, or all of them if the clinic had fewer (for 6 clinics under 100, the provider returned fewer than Google counts, 197 reviews short in all): 193,998 reviews, 150,035 with text, first posted between 20 July 2011 and 22 October 2026. 60,656 were first posted in the 12 months before 22 October 2026. We hold every review for 1,332 of the 2,810 clinics.

The themes and the checks. We wrote 19 word lists before the analysis, one per theme. A review mentions a theme when its text contains one of the words. We checked 14 of the lists by reading random matches one by one: 40 matches per list where there were enough, 20 from one- and two-star reviews and 20 from four- and five-star reviews where there were enough of each, drawn from the reviews of the 130 clinics collected in the first part of the collection. An AI model (Claude) did that reading, and the full reading of the unhappy reviews, working to written definitions; the money and phone lists were also checked a second time on the same 20 unhappy reviews each. The lists we quote did well where we use them: names a vet 40 of 40, money 16 and 18 of 20 on unhappy reviews, rude 19 of 20 on unhappy reviews, explained 17 of 20 on four- and five-star reviews, a pet’s death 34 of 40. Two lists we quote only as word counts, the staff words and “recommend”, were not checked. Several lists did badly and are not used: gentle handling (14 of 40), a cost not explained (6 of 20 on unhappy reviews; we use the full reading instead), will not return (13 of 20 on unhappy reviews), and waiting on four- and five-star reviews (6 of 20). One list, “nobody called back”, matched almost no review, so we do not report it. The full reading covered every one of the 10,465 one- and two-star reviews with text: 9,980 read in 25 batches by readers working to the same written definitions, and 485 taken from the two earlier readings of random samples. Four reviews appear on two listings each; the reading counts each once, which is why the word lists show 10,469. To measure how consistent the reading is, 150 of the reviews, drawn at random, were read a second time by a separate reader: the two readings gave the same main subject for 129 of the 150, and agreed on whether money was mentioned for 142 and on how staff treated the pet parent for 135.

What could move the figures, and which way.

1. Every clinic with reviews. The review figures cover all 2,810 listings with at least one review, so there is no sampling margin. The 241 listings with no reviews appear only in section 1, in the review counts, the star mix and the review phrases, which use all 3,051 listings. The rating figures use the 2,810 listings with reviews.
2. The newest 100 reviews per clinic. For the 1,472 clinics with more than 100 reviews on Google we hold only the newest 100, so their older reviews are not in the data. 156 clinics reached 100 reviews inside a year, so their yearly counts are too low: the busiest clinics are understated.
3. Word lists. Even the lists we use catch a few reviews that are not about the theme, so those shares are slightly overstated, and every list misses some other ways of saying the same thing, which understates them. The full reading of unhappy reviews is the cross-check.
4. Only the reviews Google showed on 22 October 2026. Reviews removed by Google, at a business’s request or by their authors are not in the data. If removed reviews lean negative, the share of one- and two-star reviews is understated.
5. Edited reviews. We date each review by when it was first posted, but it shows its current stars and text. About 1 in 13 was edited more than a day after posting (measured on the 193,465 reviews from the main provider, which gives an edit date). The direction is unknown.
6. Listing data a few weeks old. Across the 2,801 clinics where we could compare, Google showed 9,395 more reviews in total than the listing data held (1,576 clinics showed more, 1,161 the same, 64 fewer). The listing counts are slightly low.
7. Who is counted. Listings filed under another main category, and listings for a single vet, are left out. 245 listings show no state; the report gives no figures by state.
8. Replies. Replies removed before 22 October 2026 are not counted, so reply shares could be understated.
9. Care. Nothing about veterinary care was assessed. A review is one person’s account.

The rules on asking for and replying to reviews come from the ACCC’s business guidance on online reviews and its 2023 report on an internet sweep of online reviews, and from Google’s Business Profile help and Maps content policy, all read and saved on 22 October 2026. The data cost about $1.79 (US dollars) of treg credit. No clinic, reviewer or staff member is named in this report, and no review is quoted.

We sell websites, local search and Google Ads to vet clinics, and helping clinics with their Google listing and their reviews is part of that work, so a report about reviews serves our interest. That is why every figure here is scoped, dated and traceable to raw files we keep, and why no clinic, reviewer or staff member is named. Corrections are welcome at hello@forvets.au and will be noted on this page with their date.