rightvet.

AREA REPORT

Vets in Stevenage

Prices, reviews and ownership for 6 practices

LOCAL OVERVIEW

Stevenage has 6 vet practices. None are independently owned and most are part of larger veterinary groups. Consultation fees range from £29 at Walton Lodge Vets to around £70 at typical high street vets. Most practices here publish their prices online. The highest-rated practice is Medivet Stevenage - Valley Vets at 4.7 on Google.

6 practices6 in a group£54 avg consultation
0%
independent
£54
avg consultation
5
publish prices

Find vets near you

Enter your postcode for personalised results with distances and local pricing

Or browse all 6 Stevenage practices

What vets charge in Stevenage

5 cheapest consultations from 5 practices that publish prices

1
Walton Lodge Vets
Large group: IVC Evidensia (905 practices)
£29
4.6/5
2
Vets4Pets
Joint venture: Pets at Home (474 practices)
£45
4.6/5
3
Medivet Stevenage - Valley Vets
Large group: Medivet & Partners (361 practices)
£56
4.7/5
4
Roebuck Veterinary Group - Roebuck
Large group: CVS Vets (400 practices)
£70
4.1/5
5
Roebuck Veterinary Group - Great Ashby
Large group: CVS Vets (400 practices)
£70
4.2/5

1 practice in Stevenage 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 Stevenage

Ownership breakdown across 6 practices

CVS Group 2
IVC Evidensia 1
Pets at Home 1
Jollyes 1
Medivet 1
Most practices in Stevenage are part of larger veterinary groups. Nationally, around half of all practices are part of larger groups. Here, 6 of 6 are part of larger groups.

Larger groups

CVS Group
2 practices
Public (LSE listed)
IVC Evidensia
1 practice
Nestlé / EQT / Silver Lake
Pets at Home
1 practice
Pets at Home plc
Jollyes
1 practice
Medivet
1 practice
CVC Capital Partners

Stevenage vet rankings

6 practices in your area

Common questions about vets in Stevenage

Vets in nearby towns

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

See something wrong? Suggest a correction