CentralReach vs Theralytics: Find the Perfect Fit for Your ABA Practice

For ABA therapy practices, choosing the right ABA software isn’t just about having lots of features—it’s about which system will make billing smoother, operations cleaner, staff happier, and data actually usable. This article takes a close look at CentralReach and Theralytics side by side, calling out their strengths, potential drawbacks, and the critical factors that will help you decide which platform fits your team best.

Feature Comparison: What Each Platform Does Best for ABA Practices

When it comes to ABA practice management software, the choice often narrows down to Theralytics and CentralReach. Both platforms offer full-suite tools—from billing and scheduling to clinical documentation and data analysis. But the right fit depends on your clinic’s size, complexity, and goals. Here’s a clear, detailed breakdown of how they stack up across key areas without sugarcoating any of it.

Billing & Revenue Cycle Management

Claim Submission, Insurance Verification & Scrubbing

Theralytics keeps the process lean and focused. It's built-in checks flag errors before they turn into denials, simplifying claim submissions and insurance billing to cut friction and save time.

CentralReach takes a broader approach. Insurance verification is woven into detailed claim workflows, giving larger practices tighter control and deeper oversight.

In user ratings, Theralytics consistently earns high marks—about 4.8 out of 5 for value and functionality—compared to roughly 4.1–4.3 for CentralReach, reflecting its reputation for ease and efficiency.

Handling Secondary Payors, Denials, and Auditing

CentralReach is known for its robust denial management and audit tracking. If you're dealing with multiple insurance layers and need documentation depth, it delivers—though it’s not plug-and-play. Expect some configuration effort.

Theralytics does provide tools to manage denials and secondary payors. It’s faster to use, but gets mixed reviews when it comes to customizing documents for specific insurance payor needs. That could be a limitation if your billing workflow requires tailoring templates per payer.

Automation vs. Manual Billing Workflows

Theralytics puts a lot of effort into minimizing manual tasks. You get automatic reminders, built-in validations, and quick insurance eligibility checks—designed for efficiency.

CentralReach has more automation capabilities, but they often need to be configured manually—you won’t believe how much effort it really takes.

Scheduling, Staff & Workflow Management

Flexibility

Both platforms support multiple site locations, provider and client views, and real-time cancel/reschedule flows. But the feel is different.

Theralytics is more intuitive. Users report it being easier to navigate and quicker to set up schedules.

CentralReach has more granular control over staff permissions, shift coverage, and availability across teams. If your ABA therapy billing service juggles lots of clinicians in various settings, that flexibility could be a big win.

Mobile Access & Offline Functionality

Theralytics is widely praised for ease of use and mobile access (≈ 4.8/5), but some users mention it lacks a truly robust offline mode.

CentralReach does offer better offline documentation options, although users occasionally report syncing issues, especially when internet access is spotty.

So if you rely heavily on field data entry or rural-area service delivery, CentralReach might be the safer bet.

Payroll, Time Tracking & Credentialing

Both platforms offer these functions. Theralytics has built-in payroll and time tracking baked into its interface—good enough for small to mid-size teams.

CentralReach requires more configuration but handles more complex setups like multi-site credential renewals, staff compliance logs, and detailed role-based permissions. If you're scaling fast, CentralReach has deeper infrastructure.

Data Collection, Progress Monitoring & Reporting

ABA-Specific Data Features

Theralytics offers user-friendly dashboards for behavior tracking, goal progress, and outcome management. These tools reduce the need for manual charting and let BCBAs get a real-time view of client progress.

CentralReach includes similar features but also gives you access to custom reporting, comparison graphs, and deeper data visualization. That said, some users note that setting up graphing tools or running baseline comparisons can take time or training.

Visual Dashboards & Quick Insights

Theralytics wins in clarity. Its dashboards are clean, visual, and accessible without training. Many users highlight how quickly they can get an overview of therapy goals and billing metrics.

CentralReach’s dashboards are more powerful but can overwhelm smaller clinics. If you're not someone who enjoys digging through data layers, Theralytics will probably feel easier to manage.

Documentation, Compliance & Audit Trails

Session Notes, Plans, E-signatures & Compliance

CentralReach is known for compliance. The platform includes built-in audit trails, customizable session templates, and HIPAA-aligned workflows. If you're serving multiple states or require tight documentation control, this could be crucial.

Theralytics covers most essentials—SOAP notes, treatment plans, electronic signatures, etc.—but some users mention it lacks flexibility for customizing documentation to meet unique payor formats.

Security, Cloud Access & Data Protection

Both platforms are cloud-based and meet HIPAA compliance requirements. You get secure data storage, encryption, regular backups, and protected access.

Theralytics earns solid user feedback on stability and data reliability. CentralReach pushes further with SOC 2, FERPA, and PCI standards—more suited to enterprise-level setups.

User Interface, Support & Adoption

Usability & Learning Curve

Theralytics is consistently rated easier to use, especially by smaller clinics or teams without dedicated IT support. Most users report being able to train staff and go live within a few days.

CentralReach, in contrast, requires training. The onboarding process is longer due to its expansive feature set and customization layers. That’s not necessarily bad—just expect to invest more time upfront.

Support Quality

Theralytics is widely appreciated for its responsive, human support. Real people, quick email replies, and hands-on help.

CentralReach also offers strong customer support, but some users mention delays and challenges in resolving workflow-related issues, especially in custom setups.

What are the primary cost differences between CentralReach and Theralytics

Theralytics publishes pricing publicly, with some modules starting at $15–$20/month. This level of clarity is rare and helps you plan your budget without surprises.

CentralReach is quote-based, and most packages require you to go through a sales process. For smaller providers, this makes it harder to compare upfront.

Total Cost of Ownership

CentralReach’s depth and flexibility come with added costs: training fees, data migration, and possibly the need for extra admin staff to handle configurations.

Theralytics typically involves fewer setup costs and less operational overhead. That makes it a more attractive choice for solo providers or growing ABA clinics looking to stay lean.

Which Platform Fits Which Type of ABA Practice

Solo BCBA or Small Clinic

If you’re a single BCBA or running a small clinic, simplicity and predictable costs are key. Theralytics often fits best here. It delivers core essentials—ABA billing, scheduling, documentation, and progress tracking—without layers of complex configuration. Onboarding is straightforward, and the learning curve is gentle. Example: A two-clinician clinic reported a 20–30% drop in administrative work within three months after moving to Theralytics, thanks to faster insurance verification and easier ABA therapy billing tasks.

Growing Clinic or Multi-Site Practice

As practices expand across locations, the need for detailed reporting, permission controls, and robust workflow management grows. CentralReach shines in these situations. Its ability to manage multi-site scheduling, granular user roles, and comprehensive reporting makes it ideal for scaling operations. 

Example: A multi-site ABA provider used CentralReach to standardize billing workflows and create consolidated reports, though they noted that customizing those workflows required extra time and budget.

Specialized Practices (Autism + Speech/OT, School-Based, Home-Based)

For practices offering multiple therapies or working in varied settings such as schools and homes, flexibility and mobile access are critical. Theralytics provides clean mobile functionality and strong field data collection, ideal for on-the-go documentation. CentralReach, meanwhile, offers extensive third-party integrations, customizable documentation, and advanced compliance tools—valuable when dealing with multiple payor types or specialized service lines.

What to Expect When Adopting One of These Systems

Adopting ABA practice management software is more than installing a program.

• Timeline & Migration: CentralReach requires more setup—permissions, multi-site scheduling, and document templates—so migration can take weeks. Theralytics is quicker, though custom payor or document templates may need extra work.

• Change Management: CentralReach’s complexity calls for structured training, pilot phases, and staff feedback to ensure buy-in. Many clinics report several weeks of onboarding. Theralytics users usually experience faster adoption and easier training, making the switch smoother for new staff.

• System Integrations: If you already run an EHR, payroll system, or other tools, integration is key. CentralReach offers mature APIs and stronger links with ABA billing services and ABA therapy billing software. Theralytics integrates with core systems but still trails CentralReach in breadth.

Decision Checklist: Key Questions to Ask Yourself Before Choosing

Before you select, align the software against your practice priorities. Use this checklist.

1. What is the complexity of your billing/payor needs? Do you have many payors? Secondary/denial workflows? Authorizations?

2. How many users, clinicians, and sites will need access (including mobile/off‑site)? Does your practice need remote / home‑based documentation or field data entry?

3. How important are advanced analytics vs basic functionality? Do you need deep dashboards, goal progress over long periods, outcome comparisons, or just reliable session notes, scheduling, and claims management?

4. What are your budget constraints over the next 1‑2 years? Include software subscription, additional module fees, onboarding/training, support costs, and possible hidden fees.

5. What level of support and training will you require? Do you have internal staff who can learn a complex system, or do you need vendor support, tutorials, a responsive helpdesk, etc.?

FAQ

1. Which platform is better for mobile work?

Theralytics provides full offline access with GPS signatures. CentralReach offers mobile data collection but occasionally experiences app glitches.

2. Which platform is better for in-home therapy services?

Theralytics, with its mobile-friendly and intuitive design, is often favored by in-home ABA providers. But if offline access is critical, CentralReach may be more reliable.

3. Which system integrates better with payroll?

Theralytics includes built-in payroll features for ease. CentralReach supports deeper integrations but may require setup.

Conclusion

Theralytics suits small ABA practices with simple billing needs, offering ease, clarity, and fast setup. For larger clinics needing custom workflows, deep analytics, or complex billing, CentralReach provides that depth—at a higher cost. Always trial both, involve your team, and evaluate effort, integrations, and true value before choosing. The right ABA software will cut admin time, improve ABA billing accuracy, and free your team to focus on patient care.