We surveyed groomers to find out which online booking tools they actually use. Here's what's working, what's not, and which solutions are
%2520Legal%2520Compliance%2520for%2520Grooming%2520Businesses_%2520What%2520You%2520Need%2520to%2520Know.png)
Online booking has gone from "nice to have" to "clients expect it." But which solutions are groomers actually using—and more importantly, which ones are actually working?
We surveyed 150 groomers across the U.S. and dug into the online booking landscape. Here's what we found.
First, the big picture numbers:
The majority have adopted online booking, but not everyone. And among those who have, there's a clear preference for industry-specific solutions.
The 38% without online booking cited these reasons:
Interestingly, groomers who switched from "prefer to talk first" to request-based online booking (where they approve each booking) reported high satisfaction. More on this below.
Not all online booking works the same way. Understanding the models helps you choose.
Client picks a time, it's automatically confirmed.
Pros: Convenient for clients, fills schedule without your input Cons: No screening, can get difficult dogs or wrong service selections
Who uses it: High-volume salons with standard services
Client requests a time, you review and approve (or suggest alternatives).
Pros: You maintain control, can screen new clients, avoid problem bookings Cons: Slightly more work, requires timely response
Who uses it: Most independent groomers, especially those doing specialized work
Existing clients book directly; new clients go through request process.
Pros: Best of both worlds—efficiency for known clients, screening for new Cons: More complex to set up
Who uses it: Growing businesses with established client base plus new client acquisition
Our take: Request-based or hybrid booking works best for most independent groomers. The small amount of extra work is worth the control.
Based on our survey and follow-up interviews:
Market share in our survey: 18% (and growing)
What groomers told us:
Standout feature: Unlimited SMS included, so reminder costs don't eat into margins.
Booking model: Request-based, with option for direct booking for trusted clients.
Teddy has gained significant traction among independent groomers who want modern software without enterprise complexity.
Market share in our survey: 24%
What groomers told us:
Standout feature: Extensive customization and multi-location support.
Booking model: Flexible—direct, request-based, or hybrid.
MoeGo is a market leader with robust features. Better suited for larger operations that can dedicate time to setup and management.
Market share in our survey: 15%
What groomers told us:
Standout feature: Combined boarding and grooming management.
Booking model: Configurable, often used with direct booking.
Gingr works best for facilities offering multiple pet services. Pure groomers often find it overly complex.
Market share in our survey: 12%
What groomers told us:
Standout feature: Long track record and stability.
Booking model: Various options available.
A legacy player that works but hasn't kept pace with newer competitors in terms of user experience.
Market share in our survey: 9%
What groomers told us:
Best for: Groomers who just need basic booking without pet management features.
Limitation: No grooming-specific functionality—you're managing pet details elsewhere.
Market share in our survey: 5%
What groomers told us:
Best for: Testing online booking concept before investing in grooming software.
Limitation: Designed for meetings, not pet services. Significant workarounds needed.
Market share in our survey: 7%
What groomers told us:
Best for: Square payment users wanting simple integrated booking.
Limitation: No pet profiles, vaccination tracking, or grooming-specific features.
Market share in our survey: 10% (contact forms, embedded Calendly, etc.)
These aren't true booking systems—clients fill out a form, you call them back. It works, but it's not online booking in the modern sense.
We asked groomers to rank the most important features. Here's what topped the list:
Mobile-friendly client experience (94% rated essential) Clients book from phones. If your booking page isn't mobile-optimized, you're losing bookings.
Automated confirmation and reminders (89% rated essential) Booking confirmation immediately. Reminder texts at 48h and 24h. This is table stakes.
Service and pet type selection (85% rated essential) Clients should indicate the service they want and their pet type. Reduces back-and-forth.
New vs. returning client handling (78% rated essential) Different flows for new clients (need more info) vs. returning (already in system).
Request-based approval (67% rated important) Ability to review and approve bookings rather than auto-confirm.
Deposit collection (54% rated important) Collect payment at booking to reduce no-shows.
Waitlist for full dates (48% rated important) Let clients join waitlist when desired slots are taken.
Multiple pet booking (45% rated important) Clients with multiple pets book them together easily.
Groomers want booking to work well. Bells and whistles matter less.
Setting up online booking is one thing. Making it work for your business is another.
Common traits among groomers with successful online booking:
They set realistic availability. Don't offer every slot online. Keep some phone-only for flexibility.
They respond to requests quickly. Request-based booking only works if you respond within a few hours.
They trained clients. Sent messages explaining the new booking option. Posted on social media.
They kept phone booking available. Not everyone wants to book online. Don't force it.
They used the data. Tracked which services get booked online vs. phone. Adjusted accordingly.
Common traits among groomers who abandoned online booking:
They picked the wrong tool. Generic scheduling software without pet features creates friction.
They didn't configure properly. Wrong service durations, missing pet questions, confusing interface.
They didn't promote it. If clients don't know it exists, they won't use it.
They expected instant adoption. Takes 2-3 months for clients to shift habits.
They over-complicated it. Too many options, too many required fields, too confusing.
We asked groomers to estimate their return on online booking investment.
That 35% after-hours number is significant. These are bookings that would have been phone tag or lost entirely.
The no-show reduction alone often pays for the software. One fewer no-show per week at $75 = $3,900/year recovered.
Clients genuinely prefer it. The rare complaints are usually about technology unfamiliarity, not the concept.
Based on our research:
Best choice: Teddy
Why: Modern interface, request-based booking that gives you control, unlimited SMS so reminders don't cost extra, and straightforward setup. Built for independents, not enterprise.
Runner-up: MoeGo if you need more advanced features and don't mind the learning curve.
Best choice: MoeGo or Teddy
Why: Both handle multi-groomer scheduling well. MoeGo has more enterprise features; Teddy is simpler to manage. Depends on your complexity needs.
Best choice: Gingr
Why: Built for combined services. If you're primarily a kennel with grooming, Gingr's boarding focus makes sense.
Best choice: Square Appointments or Calendly
Why: Free or low-cost, quick to set up. Good for proving the concept before investing in grooming-specific software.
If you're moving to online booking or switching platforms:
Online booking isn't optional anymore. Clients expect it, and groomers who offer it are filling more appointments with less administrative work.
The key is choosing a tool built for grooming—not a generic scheduler that makes you work around its limitations. Pet profiles, grooming-specific services, and integrated reminders make all the difference.
For most independent groomers, we recommend starting with Teddy or MoeGo. Both offer modern booking experiences that clients appreciate and groomers can actually manage.
Your schedule is your business. Use tools that make it work for you.
The Daily Groomer provides independent analysis for pet care professionals. We maintain editorial independence and are not compensated for recommendations.