rightvet.

AREA REPORT

Vets in Stamford

Prices, reviews and ownership for 4 practices

LOCAL OVERVIEW

Stamford is unusual. Almost seven in ten practices here are independently owned, far higher than the national average. Consultation fees range from £29 at Stamford Veterinary Centre to around £49 at typical high street vets. Most practices here publish their prices online. The highest-rated practice is Priory Veterinary Practice Stamford Ltd at 4.9 on Google.

4 practices1 in a group3 independent£42 avg consultation
75%
independent
£42
avg consultation
3
publish prices

Find vets near you

Enter your postcode for personalised results with distances and local pricing

Or browse all 4 Stamford practices

What vets charge in Stamford

3 cheapest consultations from 3 practices that publish prices

1
Stamford Veterinary Centre
Large group: IVC Evidensia (905 practices)
£29
4.9/5
2
Priory Veterinary Practice Stamford Ltd
Small independent group: Priory Veterinary Practice Bourne (2 practices)
£48
4.1/5
3
Welland Valley Vets Ltd
Small independent group: Welland Valley Vets (2 practices)
£49
4.1/5

1 practice in Stamford 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 Stamford

Ownership breakdown across 4 practices

Independent 3
IVC Evidensia 1
Stamford has one of the highest rates of independent vet ownership in the UK. Nationally, around half of all practices are part of larger veterinary groups. Here, only 1 of 4 are part of larger groups.

Larger groups

IVC Evidensia
1 practice
Nestlé / EQT / Silver Lake

Stamford vet rankings

4 practices in your area

Common questions about vets in Stamford

Vets in nearby towns

Vets in Bourne3 practices· avg £35
Vets in Peterborough20 practices· avg £49
Vets in Oakham4 practices
Vets in Corby3 practices· avg £60
Vets in Grantham5 practices· avg £39
Vets in Kettering9 practices· avg £48

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

See something wrong? Suggest a correction