rightvet.

AREA REPORT

Vets in Dorchester

Prices, reviews and ownership for 5 practices

LOCAL OVERVIEW

Dorchester has 5 vet practices. Only 1 is independently owned and most are part of larger veterinary groups. Consultation fees range from £29 at Dave Cumber Vets to around £66 at typical high street vets. Most practices here publish their prices online. The highest-rated practice is Medivet Wool at 4.9 on Google.

5 practices4 in a group1 independent£52 avg consultation
20%
independent
£52
avg consultation
4
publish prices

Find vets near you

Enter your postcode for personalised results with distances and local pricing

Or browse all 5 Dorchester practices

What vets charge in Dorchester

4 cheapest consultations from 4 practices that publish prices

1
Dave Cumber Vets
Large group: IVC Evidensia (905 practices)
£29
4.8/5
2
Dorchester Vets4Pets
Joint venture: Pets at Home (474 practices)
£54
4.8/5
3
Medivet Wool
Large group: Medivet & Partners (361 practices)
£60
4.8/5
4
Medivet Dorchester Southfield Veterinary Centre
Large group: Medivet & Partners (361 practices)
£66
4.7/5

1 practice in Dorchester don't publish their consultation prices online. Pricing transparency is one of the issues the CMA veterinary market investigation is addressing.

Who owns vets in Dorchester

Ownership breakdown across 5 practices

Independent 1
Medivet 2
IVC Evidensia 1
Pets at Home 1
Most practices in Dorchester are part of larger veterinary groups. Nationally, around half of all practices are part of larger groups. Here, 4 of 5 are part of larger groups.

Larger groups

Medivet
2 practices
CVC Capital Partners
IVC Evidensia
1 practice
Nestlé / EQT / Silver Lake
Pets at Home
1 practice
Pets at Home plc

Dorchester vet rankings

5 practices in your area

Common questions about vets in Dorchester

Vets in nearby towns

Vets in Weymouth3 practices· avg £49
Vets in Wareham2 practices
Vets in Blandford Forum3 practices· avg £55
Vets in Yeovil4 practices· avg £48

Looking for a vet in a different area? Find vets near me

See something wrong? Suggest a correction