Cover Photo
U.S. Veterinary Services
Market Report 2026
STOC Advisory  ·  Corporate Development Support Baltimore, MD  ·  Nashville, TN  ·  Dallas, TX  ·  Philadelphia, PA
2026
Disclaimer

This report has been prepared by STOC Advisory, LLC for informational and discussion purposes only. It is based on proprietary research, internal analysis, third-party sources believed to be reliable, and data available as of the date of preparation. While reasonable care has been taken in its preparation, STOC Advisory makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or future reliability of any data, estimates, assumptions, or conclusions contained herein.

The views and findings in this report are intended to support strategic evaluation and do not constitute investment, legal, tax, accounting, or other professional advice, nor a recommendation to pursue or decline any transaction or course of action. Forward-looking statements and market views are inherently subject to uncertainty and may be affected by changes in market conditions, competitive dynamics, regulatory developments, data quality, and other factors beyond STOC Advisory's control.

This report may include proprietary frameworks, scoring models, and market intelligence developed by STOC Advisory for analytical purposes. Such methodologies are directional tools designed to inform prioritization and decision support and should not be relied upon as the sole basis for any decision. Recipients are expected to apply independent judgment and conduct their own diligence. This work may not be published, reproduced, or distributed without the explicit written permission of STOC Advisory.

Platform and competitor names are excluded from this report. Active platform counts are used as the consolidation context metric throughout.

Any regulatory feasibility discussion in this report is intended as a strategic screening overlay only and does not constitute legal advice; state-specific veterinary transaction counsel should be consulted before any acquisition, MSO structuring, employment, licensing, or compliance decision.

Copyright © 2026 STOC Advisory, LLC. All rights reserved.
About STOC Advisory
STOC Advisory is a business advisory firm specializing in transaction advisory services, corporate development, growth enablement, and finance data & intelligence. We work alongside management teams and private equity sponsors through every stage of the acquisition lifecycle, bringing rigorous financial analysis and hands-on execution to each engagement.
Mission
To deliver tailored financial insights and strategic guidance that drive successful transactions and long-term growth.
Vision
To be the most trusted advisor for middle-market companies and private equity partners seeking disciplined, repeatable growth.
TAS
Transaction Advisory Services
Buy- and sell-side financial due diligence, Quality of Earnings, NWC mechanisms, deal structuring, and integration & exit planning.
CDS
Corporate Development Support
Proprietary deal sourcing, outreach execution, pipeline management, and NDA coordination embedded alongside your team.
GES
Growth Enablement Services
Operational and strategic support to accelerate organic growth, improve unit economics, and build platform scalability post-acquisition.
FDI
Finance Data & Intelligence
A data-led offering that supports underwriting, operational value creation, and exit readiness through sharper financial insight and decision support.
Corporate Development Support (CDS). Our CDS practice helps PE-backed and founder-led companies accelerate pipeline velocity through targeted lead generation, data-driven outreach, and CRM-integrated pipeline management. We partner alongside existing internal teams to build strategic pipelines that align with investment criteria, engage with qualified targets, and drive measurable deal outcomes.
01
Deal Sourcing and Outreach
Identify and contact targets through direct outreach and market mapping.
02
Target Screening and Fit
Evaluate opportunities against strategic, financial, and operational criteria.
03
CRM Management
Clean pipeline data, standardized stages, timely follow-up.
04
Diligence Coordination
Align stakeholders, gather materials, flag deal issues early.
05
Valuation Input
Compile financials, normalize EBITDA, provide bid context.
06
IC Reporting
Weekly updates and IC-ready materials delivered to sponsors.
07
Post-Close Handoff and Integration Oversight
Facilitate transition to integration or portfolio operations, documenting deal context, rationale, and ongoing commitments.
STOC Advisory, LLC
600 Baltimore Ave., Suite 205  ·  Towson, Maryland 21204  ·  www.stocadvisory.com
3
Contents
Universe & Screens
Executive Market Thesis
5
Regional Intelligence
Regional Opportunity Landscape
6
Regulatory Execution Overlay
7
Platform and Chain Activity
8
Market Depth
Scaled Sourcing Markets
9
Focused Opportunity Markets
10
Market Drivers
Service-Area Positioning
11
Competitive Pressure and Diligence Intensity
12
Operating Overlay
Observable Operating Signals
13
Provider Depth and Staff Scale
14
Customer Access and Social Visibility
15
Service Category Signals
16
CBSA Operating Overlay
17
Expansion Framework
Acquisition vs. New-Location Review
18
Appendix
Methodology Notes
19
How CDS Translates Into Deals
20
Key Contacts
21
4
Universe & Screens
The Priority Sourcing Pool Is 9,036 Clinics, or 28.2% of a 32,059-Clinic National Acquisition Universe Built on Geographic and Competitive Screens
The clean acquisition universe covers 32,059 targetable independent clinics. Priority and actionable screens together identify 9,036 clinics (28.2%) as the strongest starting point for outreach. The remaining 71.8% are not excluded but fall into secondary review or watchlist categories requiring more selective targeting or carrying higher competitive intensity. Every exhibit in this report uses one of four defined subsets; each is labeled to prevent mixing denominators across comparisons.
32,059
Full acquisition universe
All targetable independent clinics
9,036
Priority + Actionable screens
28.2% of clean acquisition universe
4,182
Priority screens
13.0%: Highest geographic confidence
12,682
Enriched operating-overlay subset
Close-In Market + Moderate Separation positions
Acquisition Screen Tier Distribution
0% 20% 40% 60% Share of clinics (%) Screen tier 13.0% Priority Screen 15.1% Actionable Screen 14.2% Secondary Review 57.6% Watchlist
Analysis Subsets Used in This Report
Subset Clinics Report use
Full clean acquisition universe32,059All targetable independent clinics; screen tiers and regional exhibits.
Validated CBSA subset26,661Clinics with valid CBSA labels; used for CBSA depth tables.
Population-backed subset26,199Clinics with usable population values; supply gap and new-location review.
Enriched operating-overlay subset12,682Close-In Market and Moderate Separation with web-based signal enrichment.
28.2% screens as Priority + Actionable
The highest-confidence pool of 9,036 clinics spans all four regions and is the primary starting point for outreach sequencing.
Denominators do not cross-apply
Percentages from the CBSA subset, enriched overlay, and population subset are not directly comparable. Each exhibit labels its denominator.
STOC Geo Index
Geographic and competitive-context acquisition screen. Not a financial quality metric or clinical rating.
Acquisition Screen
Identifies markets with favorable geographic conditions. Individual diligence is required before any engagement.
Operating Signals
Web-visible data covering provider depth, staff scale, booking access, and social presence. Not a proxy for revenue or profitability.
Context Supply
Larger platform and chain locations retained for competitive-density context only. Not counted as acquisition targets.
Regulatory Feasibility
Priority + Actionable screens identify where sourcing depth is strongest; state-level regulatory feasibility determines how those markets should be sequenced, structured, and diligenced.
Denominator: Full clean acquisition universe (32,059) for screen tier exhibit. Priority screens: STOC Geo Index at highest-confidence threshold. Actionable screens: strong secondary tier. Secondary review and Watchlist categories require higher diligence or carry elevated competitive pressure. Data vintage Q1 2026.
5
Regional Intelligence
State-Level Sourcing Depth Shows Where Priority Screens Are Actually Scalable
State-level opportunity should be read by sourcing depth first and concentration second. This page ranks states by absolute Priority + Actionable clinic count and uses targetable clinic depth to show where sourcing can scale. Map colors are based on absolute Priority + Actionable screen count, while labels show the in-state P+A share only.
Top States by Priority + Actionable Count
Rank State Region Targetable Clinics P+A Screens P+A Share Total P+A Share
1 California West 2,898 480 16.6% 5.3%
2 Pennsylvania Northeast 1,188 470 39.6% 5.2%
3 Ohio Midwest 1,374 462 33.6% 5.1%
4 North Carolina South 1,292 460 35.6% 5.1%
5 Florida South 2,872 452 15.7% 5.0%
6 Indiana Midwest 839 426 50.8% 4.7%
7 Texas South 1,813 359 19.8% 4.0%
8 Wisconsin Midwest 784 343 43.8% 3.8%
9 Georgia South 931 338 36.3% 3.7%
10 Michigan Midwest 991 332 33.5% 3.7%
11 New York Northeast 1,382 329 23.8% 3.6%
12 Tennessee South 836 320 38.3% 3.5%
Sourcing depth leads the state view
Ranking by Priority + Actionable count shows where actionable clinic volume exists and keeps scaled outreach potential in the foreground.
Concentration is supporting context
P+A share helps interpret state-level concentration, while targetable clinic depth shows whether sourcing can scale.
Sourcing depth is not execution ease
States such as Florida, Texas, California, and New York provide meaningful P+A depth, but their regulatory execution paths differ materially once CPVM, MSO, enforcement, and pending-legislation risk are considered.
Denominator: Full clean acquisition universe. State rankings are based on Priority + Actionable Screen count to emphasize sourcing depth. Map colors use Priority + Actionable Screen count; map labels show in-state P+A Share only.
6
Regulatory Execution Overlay
State Regulatory Feasibility Determines Execution Path; Tier 1 and Tier 2 Markets Offer the Most Accessible Structuring Environment
The regulatory feasibility overlay assigns each state a tier based on CPVM ownership restrictions, MSO structuring requirements, enforcement posture, labor scalability, telehealth access, pharmacy rules, and operational complexity. The overlay does not change Priority + Actionable counts or the STOC Geo Index – it identifies the appropriate execution path for each state, from direct-acquisition scale outreach to counsel-structured, diligence-led engagement.
Tier 1 – Favorable Execution
4 states
1,168 P+A screens · 5,605 targetable clinics
FL, VA, MI, CO – minimal CPVM friction, favorable enforcement posture; scale outreach priority.
Tier 2 – Moderate Structuring
25 states
4,040 P+A screens · 12,207 targetable clinics
OH, IN, WI, GA, TN, MO, SC and others – state-specific structuring; most scalable markets are here.
Tier 3 – Higher Diligence Required
19 states
3,019 P+A screens · 9,938 targetable clinics
PA, NC, TX, IL, KY, MN, MA and others – MSO or CPVM structuring required; counsel-sequenced transactions before scaling.
Tier 4 – Diligence-Led Only
2 states
809 P+A screens · 4,280 targetable clinics
CA, NY – highest CPVM and enforcement risk; PE attractiveness constrained; specialist counsel required from outset.
Top 15 States by P+A Count with Regulatory Execution Tier
# State Region P+A Tier CPVM Enforc. PE Attr. Execution Read
1CaliforniaWest4804554Large market – high compliance burden; diligence-led sequencing
2PennsylvaniaNortheast4703436Large universe – structure carefully; sequence with counsel
3OhioMidwest4622327Scale candidate – moderate state-specific structuring
4North CarolinaSouth4603445Large universe – structure carefully; sequence with counsel
5FloridaSouth4521129Scale outreach priority – favorable regulatory overlay
6IndianaMidwest4262327Scale candidate – moderate state-specific structuring
7TexasSouth3593445Large universe – structure carefully; sequence with counsel
8WisconsinMidwest3432326Scale candidate – moderate state-specific structuring
9GeorgiaSouth3382337Scale candidate – moderate state-specific structuring
10MichiganMidwest3321328Scale outreach priority – favorable regulatory overlay
11New YorkNortheast3294553Large market – high compliance burden; diligence-led sequencing
12TennesseeSouth3202327Scale candidate – moderate state-specific structuring
13IllinoisMidwest2723436Targeted review – regulatory/labor diligence required before scaling
14VirginiaNortheast2641129Targeted outreach – manageable regulatory overlay
15MissouriMidwest2452327Targeted outreach – manageable regulatory overlay
CPVM and Enforcement scores: 1–5 scale (1 = minimal restriction, 5 = maximum restriction). PE Attractiveness: 1–10 (10 = highest). Regulatory Tier is a strategic screening classification only and does not constitute legal advice. States in all tiers may contain strong individual acquisition targets; tier does not override individual clinic-level diligence.
Regulatory Tier reflects CPVM ownership restrictions, MSO structuring requirements, enforcement posture, labor scalability, telehealth access, pharmacy rules, and operational complexity. Source: Vet State Regulatory Overlay Analysis, Q1 2026. The overlay does not change STOC Geo Index or P+A screen counts. State veterinary transaction counsel should be consulted before any acquisition, MSO structuring, employment, licensing, or compliance decision.
7
Platform and Chain Activity
Platform and Chain Activity Frames Market Structure; Regulatory Feasibility Determines Execution Complexity
Visible platform and chain activity indicates where consolidation infrastructure is already present. Independent Priority + Actionable depth can remain meaningful in platform-active states, but execution complexity varies by CPVM, MSO, enforcement, labor, and state-specific operating rules.
4,609
Context Supply (Platform Owned and Chain Locations)
59
Context Supply groups (Visible platform and chain groups)
48
States with Context Supply (Platform and chain activity tracked)
32,059
acquisition universe (independent clinics identified)
Platform Activity by Region: Total Independent Targets (acquisition-eligible independent clinics) vs. Context Supply (platform/chain locations, excluded from sourcing)
0 3k 6k 9k 12k 10,442 1,453 South 36 active groups* 6,702 1,375 West 32 active groups* 7,146 1,041 Northeast 27 active groups* 7,769 740 Midwest 27 active groups* Targetable clinics Context Supply
Platform-Active States Where Independent Screen Depth Remains Meaningful
StateActive groupsContext SupplyTargetable clinicsPriority + Actionable screensP+A shareAvg STOC
Indiana127383942650.8%65.8
Wisconsin94778434343.8%64.9
Pennsylvania151481,18847039.6%62.3
Tennessee146783632038.3%61.8
Louisiana96252619537.1%61.4
Alabama93359121736.7%62.6
South Carolina147963823336.5%62.5
Georgia1712793133836.3%61.0
North Carolina181511,29246035.6%61.0
Kentucky103351418135.2%61.6
Ohio131391,37446233.6%60.3
Michigan138099133233.5%62.0
Minnesota96558016628.6%57.8
Virginia1714198626426.8%58.5
Oklahoma83739410426.4%56.1
In CPVM-restricted states, visible platform activity may reflect sophisticated MSO/Friendly-PC structuring rather than low regulatory friction. Platform and chain locations are retained as context supply only and are excluded from acquisition target counts.
Context Supply = platform-owned locations and large branded / chain operators used as local supply context. Excluded from targetable clinic counts and acquisition-screen totals. Active groups* include unique platforms and chains observed in a state. Priority + Actionable uses the same screen methodology as the main report. Data vintage Q1 2026.
8
Market Depth
Atlanta, Chicago, and New York Offer the Largest Priority + Actionable Pools Among Scaled CBSAs; Large Markets With Lower Screen Rates Still Matter When the Absolute Target Count Is Meaningful.
Scaled sourcing markets are validated CBSAs with 100 or more targetable independent clinics, enough depth to support campaign-scale outreach. The table is sorted by Priority + Actionable Screens, because absolute P+A count is the primary measure of sourcing depth. P+A share is shown as a secondary concentration metric, but it should not override target count when evaluating campaign-scale opportunity.
CBSAReg.TargetsP+AP+A%Avg STOCHi-Dilig%
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Alpharetta, GAS56216028.5%57.165.7%
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WIMW70910414.7%52.380.5%
New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PANE1,188867.2%47.690.5%
Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SCS2768229.7%58.064.5%
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MDNE4447416.7%53.079.7%
Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NHNE4547316.1%52.578.9%
Pittsburgh, PANE2117133.6%58.858.3%
Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TNS2477028.3%57.667.2%
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WIMW3846717.4%52.775.3%
St. Louis, MO-ILMW3086621.4%56.470.1%
Columbus, OHMW2756523.6%55.668.4%
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WVNE4416414.5%54.671.4%
Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TXS4826112.7%52.980.1%
Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FLS3115718.3%54.478.8%
Providence-Warwick, RI-MANE1515536.4%59.858.9%
Cleveland-Elyria, OHMW1995527.6%58.170.9%
Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, INMW2405121.2%55.370.8%
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TXS584488.2%49.286.3%
San Antonio-New Braunfels, TXS1874725.1%54.372.2%
Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MIMW3454412.8%54.182.6%
Atlanta leads on actionable depth; Pittsburgh combines meaningful P+A count with stronger screen concentration.
Atlanta has the largest actionable target pool in the scaled CBSA set, with 160 Priority + Actionable Screens across 562 targetable clinics. Pittsburgh does not lead on count, but it does show a stronger concentration profile than most larger metros, with 71 P+A Screens, a 33.6% P+A share, and 58.3% higher-diligence exposure.
New York and Dallas require the tightest filtering among scaled sourcing markets.
New York and Dallas have large targetable clinic bases, with 1,188 and 584 targets, respectively. They also carry the highest higher-diligence exposure in this scaled CBSA table, at 90.5% and 86.3%. These are still relevant sourcing markets, but outreach should be more selective.
P+A Count Drives Sourcing Scale; P+A Share Shows Concentration.
P+A count shows whether a market has enough actionable targets to support outreach. P+A share shows how concentrated those targets are within the market. For scaled sourcing, count should lead the interpretation, while share helps explain how much filtering is required.
Denominator: Validated CBSA subset (26,661). Scaled sourcing = CBSAs with 100+ targetable clinics. Sorted by Priority + Actionable count. Hi-Dilig% (higher-diligence share) = proportion of targetable clinics in the CBSA facing higher competitive intensity. Color: red ≥80%, gray ≥65%, green <65%. Data vintage Q1 2026.
9
Market Depth
Focused CBSAs Show High Screen Concentration, but Should Be Treated as Targeted Review Lists Rather Than Broad Sourcing Markets
Focused opportunity markets have high P+A concentration but smaller clinic bases. They are useful for individual clinic review and targeted outreach, not for broad campaign-scale sourcing. Most markets here show 85%+ Priority + Actionable share and should not be compared directly to large-metro depth. High P+A concentration in smaller CBSAs does not remove the need to validate DVM labor availability, state-level execution constraints, and local demand depth.
CBSAReg.TargetsP+AP+A%Avg STOCHi-Dilig%
Warner Robins, GAS2525100.0%75.00.0%
Columbia, MOMW313096.8%74.13.2%
Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OHNE313096.8%74.83.2%
Auburn-Opelika, ALS292896.6%74.80.0%
Tupelo, MSS252496.0%74.20.0%
Erie, PANE343294.1%74.42.9%
Binghamton, NYNE333193.9%73.20.0%
Lafayette-West Lafayette, INMW312993.5%74.70.0%
Grand Junction, COW282692.9%74.20.0%
Greenville, NCS282692.9%74.50.0%
Bangor, MENE322990.6%74.93.1%
Blacksburg-Christiansburg, VANE312890.3%74.40.0%
Hilton Head Island-Bluffton, SCS292689.7%74.66.9%
Norwich-New London, CTNE292689.7%76.310.3%
Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJNE272488.9%74.60.0%
Jackson, TNS252288.0%75.30.0%
Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NYNE564987.5%78.08.9%
Waco, TXS292586.2%73.30.0%
Morristown, TNS272385.2%74.40.0%
Bremerton-Silverdale-Port Orchard, WAW262284.6%70.715.4%
14 of 20 markets show zero or near-zero higher-diligence pressure
Clean competitive backdrop explains the high high Priority + Actionable concentration. These markets are not suppressed by competitive overlap.
Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY: exceptionally high Priority + Actionable concentration for its size
89.1% Priority + Actionable share across 56 targets with 49 Priority + Actionable screens and 78.0 avg STOC Geo Index, well above most scaled-market averages.
Do not compare small-market percentages directly to metro-scale depth
A 100% Priority + Actionable share across 25 clinics supports focused review, not the outreach scale of 30% across 500 clinics.
Denominator: Validated CBSA subset (26,661). Focused opportunity = CBSAs with 25–99 targetable clinics, sorted by Priority + Actionable share. Priority + Actionable share color: green ≥95%, blue ≥88%. Hi-Dilig% (higher-diligence share): green <10%, red >10%. Data vintage Q1 2026.
10
Market Drivers
Moderate Separation From Nearby Supply Shows the Strongest Acquisition-Screen Concentration
Moderate Separation clinics show the highest Priority + Actionable share in the acquisition screen at 67.5%. This indicates stronger geography and competitive-context scoring, not proof of unmet demand. Service-area position is a proximity lens based on distance to the nearest mapped veterinary supply point – it should be read alongside population-backed supply metrics, competitive pressure, labor availability, and regulatory feasibility before making expansion or acquisition conclusions. Close-In Market positions carry 33.5% P+A share across 9,664 of the 12,682 enriched overlay clinics.
Priority + Actionable Share by Service-Area Position
0% 50% 100% Immediate Overlap 19.3% Close-In Market 33.5% Moderate Separation 67.5% Extended Service Area 20.4%
Service-Area Position Profile: Full Acquisition Universe (32,059 clinics)
Service-area positionClinics in universePriority + Actionable screensP+A shareAvg STOCEnriched overlay
Immediate Overlap17,7223,42219.3%53.8n/a
Close-In Market9,6643,23833.5%60.99,664
Moderate Separation3,0182,03867.5%72.83,018
Extended Service Area1,65533820.4%63.1n/a
Regional Breakdown by Service-Area Position: Enriched Overlay Subset (12,682 clinics)
RegionPositionEnriched overlayPriority + Actionable shareAvg STOCDoctor coverageBooking yesAny social
MidwestClose-In Market2,25440.4%62.860.2%66.0%63.1%
MidwestModerate Separation81971.3%73.767.2%59.2%59.3%
NortheastClose-In Market2,17532.0%60.160.3%65.2%60.8%
NortheastModerate Separation91262.4%71.763.9%60.5%58.8%
SouthClose-In Market3,18034.9%61.361.8%69.2%63.2%
SouthModerate Separation92170.0%73.264.7%64.8%58.6%
WestClose-In Market2,05525.4%58.865.4%67.9%57.7%
WestModerate Separation36665.6%72.766.4%61.9%49.7%
Service-area position calculated from distance to nearest mapped competing supply point. Enriched overlay = Close-In Market (9,664) + Moderate Separation (3,018). Priority + Actionable share uses the same screen methodology as the main report. Avg STOC = average STOC Geo Index. Data vintage Q1 2026.
11
Market Drivers
Competitive Pressure Is the Sharpest Dividing Line in the Screen; High-Pressure Markets Require a Different Diligence Posture, Not Automatic Exclusion
Competitive pressure is the single largest dividing line in the acquisition screen. Low and medium-pressure markets together contain 9,009 of the 9,036 priority + actionable screens. High-pressure markets cover 19,597 clinics (61% of the full universe) but produce just 27 priority + actionable screens (0.1%). These markets require a different diligence posture, focused on pricing defensibility, referral patterns, and overlap risk rather than automatic exclusion. Local competitive pressure and state regulatory pressure are separate diligence layers: one measures nearby supply intensity, while the other affects structuring, enforcement exposure, and transaction execution risk.
Competitive Pressure Distribution
Pressure bandClinicsP+AP+A%Avg STOC
Low5,2804,11477.9%74.2
Medium6,6924,89573.1%74.2
High19,597270.1%48.6
White Space49000.0%51.7
Low + Medium combined: 9,009 Priority + Actionable screens
These 11,972 clinics (37.3% of the full universe) contain 99.7% of all priority + actionable screens at 73–78% Priority + Actionable share.
High-pressure: diligence posture changes, not automatic exclusion
19,597 clinics, only 27 pass. Pricing, overlap analysis, and referral durability are the key diligence questions where Priority + Actionable screens do exist.
Higher-Diligence CBSAs: High Pressure With Meaningful Priority + Actionable Depth (Validated CBSA Subset)
CBSAReg.TargetsP+AP+A%Hi-Dilig%Avg STOC
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FLS662132.0%98.0%44.1
Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WAW245187.3%91.8%46.0
Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CTNE127107.9%90.6%52.4
New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PANE1,188867.2%90.5%47.6
Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, COW342267.6%90.4%46.0
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WAW360359.7%88.9%48.1
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FLS454408.8%88.5%49.3
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TXS584488.2%86.3%49.2
Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler, AZW417409.6%85.4%49.0
Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FLS941212.8%84.0%55.1
Tulsa, OKS1191411.8%84.0%46.6
Akron, OHMW981010.2%83.7%54.6
Boise City, IDW1141916.7%83.3%50.1
Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NCNE2322711.6%82.8%52.5
Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MIMW3454412.8%82.6%54.1
Huntsville, ALS841113.1%82.1%58.1
Austin-Round Rock-Georgetown, TXS2082110.1%81.7%49.6
North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton, FLS1562616.7%81.4%53.6
Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MDNE2634316.3%81.0%52.9
New Orleans-Metairie, LAS1472315.6%81.0%51.5
Denominator: Full clean acquisition universe (32,059) for pressure distribution. Validated CBSA subset (26,661) for higher-diligence CBSA table. White Space = zero nearby competing supply; route to new-location review. Data vintage Q1 2026.
12
Operating Overlay
Website and Booking Coverage Are Broad; Doctor, Staff, Social, Review, and Rating Signals Add Target-Level Visibility Where Available
The enriched operating overlay covers the 12,682 clinics in Close-In Market and Moderate Separation service-area positions. Website presence (94.1%) and booking data (94.0%) are near-universal across the overlay. Doctor count, social presence, and staff scale are available for narrower subsets but add material depth where populated. Missing values are never treated as zero or negative indicators.
Overlay Construction: How the 12,682-Clinic Subset Is Built
Construction stepClinicsNotes
Full acquisition universe32,059All targetable independent clinics
Geographic filter: Close-In + Moderate Separation12,682Within 0.5-5 miles of mapped supply point
Enrichment applied12,682Website, booking, doctor count, social, review signals
Website present11,93694.1% of enriched subset
Booking data populated11,91794.0% of enriched subset
Doctor count populated7,94962.7% of enriched subset
Staff count populated4,18133.0% of enriched subset
Signal Coverage: Share of Enriched Overlay Subset (12,682 clinics)
Bars show the share of the full enriched subset. Darker bars indicate higher-confidence signals used more broadly in clinic-level screening.
0% 50% 100% Website present 94.1% Booking data populated 94.0% Booking: Yes (active) 62.0% Doctor count populated 62.7% Any social link 60.6% Facebook present 59.7% Multi-doctor observed 38.0% Instagram present 34.6% Staff count populated 33.0% YouTube present 10.6% Staff 11+ observed 8.8%
Enriched operating overlay = Close-In Market (9,664) + Moderate Separation (3,018) clinics. Website and booking signals from public-facing web enrichment. Doctor count and staff count from listing data; missing values never treated as zero. Social link = URL observed. Data vintage Q1 2026.
13
Operating Overlay
Six in Ten Clinics With Doctor Data Operate as Multi-Doctor Practices. Staff Count Confirms Team-Scale Operations Where Available.
Doctor count is populated for 7,949 of 12,682 enriched clinics (62.7%). Among populated rows, average is 2.5 doctors, median 2. Solo practices account for 39.2%; multi-doctor clinics 60.7%. Staff count is available for 4,181 clinics (33.0%): average cleaned midpoint 10.2, median 6. Unknown or Not Found values are never treated as zero.
Doctor Count Distribution, Populated Rows (7,949)
Unknown / Not Found (4,733 clinics, 37.3%) shown as last row; excluded from distribution percentages.
0% 50% 100% Solo doctor 39.2% 2-3 doctors 39.6% 4-5 doctors 14.8% 6+ doctors 6.3% 0 listed 0.1% Not found 0.0%
Doctor rangeClinicsof overlayof populated
Solo doctor3,11724.6%39.2%
2-3 doctors3,14924.8%39.6%
4-5 doctors1,1759.3%14.8%
6+ doctors5024.0%6.3%
0 listed60.0%0.1%
Unknown / NF4,73337.3%n/a
Avg 2.5 doctors · Median 2 · Multi-doctor 60.7% of populated rows
Doctor count is the strongest provider-depth signal. Unknown / Not Found is never treated as zero doctors.
Staff Range Distribution, Populated Rows (4,181)
Unknown / Not Found (8,501 clinics, 67.0%) shown as last row; excluded from distribution percentages.
0% 50% 100% 1-5 39.9% 6-10 33.3% 11-25 19.9% 26-50 6.1% 51-100 0.5% 100+ 0.3%
Staff rangeClinicsof overlayof populated
1-51,66913.2%39.9%
6-101,39211.0%33.3%
11-258346.6%19.9%
26-502532.0%6.1%
51-100200.2%0.5%
100+130.1%0.3%
Unknown / NF8,50167.0%n/a
Avg staff midpoint 10.2 · Median 6 · Staff 11+ is 26.8% of populated rows
Staff count coverage is narrower (33.0%). Where populated it confirms team-scale evidence. Missing values excluded from percentages.
Doctor and staff visibility indicate observed clinic-level scale where populated. These signals do not measure local DVM supply, wage pressure, or recruiting difficulty, which should be validated separately in diligence.
Denominator: Enriched operating-overlay subset (12,682) for coverage; populated doctor rows (7,949) and staff rows (4,181) for distribution. Unknown / Not Found never treated as zero. Close-In Market (9,664) and Moderate Separation (3,018) make up the overlay. Data vintage Q1 2026.
14
Operating Overlay
Two-Thirds of Clinics With Booking Data Show Active Online Scheduling. Social Link Presence, Google Review Volume, and Ratings Form a Consistent Public-Facing Signal Layer.
Online booking, social presence, Google review count, and Google ratings are observable visibility indicators. They identify clinics with stronger public-facing signals across the Close-In Market and Moderate Separation overlay subset. None of these signals constitute proof of financial, clinical, or operating quality.
65.9%
Online Booking Active
Active bookings in 7,858 of 11,917 populated rows
60.6%
Any Social Link
7,684 clinics with at least one observed social URL
4.62
Avg Google Rating
93.6% rating coverage · Median 4.7 · 80.7% rated 4.5+
01 · Online Booking Status
Active online booking observed in 65.9% of clinics with booking data populated
0% 50% 100% Yes 65.9% No 34.1%
Online booking: Yes7,858  (65.9% of populated)
Online booking: No4,059  (34.1%)
Not populated765  (6.0% of overlay)
Total enriched overlay12,682
Yes-rate uses populated rows only (11,917). Booking presence is customer-access infrastructure, not a quality signal.
02 · Social Platform Presence
60.6% of enriched clinics have at least one observed social link
0% 50% 100% Any social 60.6% Facebook 59.7% Instagram 34.6% YouTube 10.6%
Any social link7,684  (60.6%)
Facebook7,568  (59.7%)
Instagram4,394  (34.6%)
YouTube1,342  (10.6%)
Social link = URL observed in enrichment. Indicates a public-facing footprint only. Does not measure engagement quality or posting activity.
03 · Google Review Volume
Median 160 reviews per clinic. 42.4% have 200 or more reviews
0% 50% 100% 1-49 reviews 25.7% 50-199 31.9% 200-499 30.8% 500+ 11.6%
1-49 reviews3,045  (25.7%)
50-199 reviews3,770  (31.9%)
200-499 reviews3,649  (30.8%)
500+ reviews1,371  (11.6%)
Avg 231 · Median 160 · 75th pct 318 · 90th pct 532. Review count reflects public activity, not financial or clinical quality.
04 · Google Rating Distribution
80.7% of clinics with ratings are at 4.5 stars or above
0% 50% 100% Below 4.0 4.5% 4.0-4.49 14.8% 4.5-4.79 38.6% 4.8-5.0 42.1%
Below 4.0533  (4.5%)
4.0 - 4.491,762  (14.8%)
4.5 - 4.794,578  (38.6%)
4.8 - 5.04,994  (42.1%)
Avg 4.62 · Median 4.7. Rating is a public-visibility signal only. Does not indicate financial, clinical, or operating performance.
Denominator: Enriched operating-overlay subset (12,682) for all coverage metrics. Online booking yes-rate uses populated rows (11,917). Google review count and rating sourced from web enrichment. All signals are public-visibility indicators and do not indicate financial, clinical, or operating quality. Missing values not treated as zero. Data vintage Q1 2026.
15
Service Category Signals
Service-Adjacent Category Signals Help Describe Clinic Mix, Not Revenue Mix. Category Tags Are Observable Public Signals and Should Not Be Treated as Verified Service-Line Economics.
Category tags are public signals derived from listing data. They describe visible service adjacency and are not verified service-line revenue indicators. A clinic may carry multiple tags. Chart shows Priority + Actionable share within each category, sorted highest to lowest. Tags are not mutually exclusive and should not be summed.
Priority + Actionable Share by Category (sorted highest to lowest)
0% 50% 100% Low-cost / vaccination clinic 44.4% Equine / large animal 29.4% Grooming 29.2% Boarding / kennel / daycare 29.1% Animal hospital / vet clinic 28.1% Mobile / house call 27.1% Emergency / urgent care 21.9% Specialty / referral 12.8%
Full Category Signal Reference
Service / category signalTargetable clinicsShare of universePriority + Actionable screensP+A share within signalAvg STOC Geo Index
Animal hospital / veterinary clinic31,77899.1%8,94028.1%58.2
Boarding / kennel / daycare20,40463.6%5,93829.1%58.7
Grooming20,02362.5%5,85029.2%58.7
Emergency / urgent care3,62811.3%79421.9%55.7
Low-cost / vaccination clinic1,6895.3%75044.4%63.5
Mobile / house call9142.9%24827.1%60.0
Specialty / referral7982.5%10212.8%50.9
Equine / large animal170.1%529.4%59.6
Category tags derived from public listing categories. Not mutually exclusive. A clinic may appear in multiple categories. Priority + Actionable share uses the same screen methodology as the main report. Avg STOC Geo Index = average acquisition-screen score for clinics carrying that tag. Denominator: full clean acquisition universe (32,059). Data vintage Q1 2026.
16
Operating Overlay
Atlanta Leads the Combined Geography-and-Scale Screen; Chicago, Philadelphia, and Boston Add Deeper Operating-Overlay Pools
This exhibit connects the acquisition screen with observable provider and staffing signals at the CBSA level. It includes validated CBSAs with at least 20 enriched clinics and is sorted by clinics that are both Priority + Actionable and show observable provider or staff scale. Count leads the interpretation; P+A share and Scale% are secondary concentration context. This is a screening layer; final target quality requires individual-level diligence beyond the geographic screen.
CBSARegEnrichedP+AP+A%Prov/ScaleScale%P+A ScaleBooking%Social%
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Alpharetta, GAS2169041.7%11050.9%4676.7%70.8%
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WIMW3067524.5%14346.7%3672.4%69.3%
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MDNE2256428.4%11651.6%2963.8%57.3%
Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NHNE2165023.1%10448.1%2870.1%62.0%
Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TNS954951.6%5254.7%2666.3%49.5%
New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PANE4685110.9%22548.1%2569.8%66.5%
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WVNE1974422.3%9849.7%2375.8%51.8%
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WIMW1484329.1%8557.4%2265.7%79.7%
Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NYNE464189.1%2452.2%2252.3%78.3%
Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MDNE1153127.0%5447.0%1974.3%78.3%
Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SCS1094743.1%4844.0%1973.6%67.9%
San Antonio-New Braunfels, TXS983636.7%3636.7%1673.1%63.3%
Pittsburgh, PANE1035250.5%3433.0%1668.8%68.9%
Cincinnati, OH-KY-INMW1133026.5%6557.5%1569.6%49.6%
St. Louis, MO-ILMW1324030.3%5743.2%1573.3%64.4%
Columbus, OHMW973637.1%3940.2%1565.9%54.6%
Providence-Warwick, RI-MANE753648.0%3040.0%1552.1%54.7%
Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FLS1363425.0%4835.3%1564.4%73.5%
Greenville-Anderson, SCS522955.8%2650.0%1480.0%78.8%
Grand Rapids-Kentwood, MIMW512956.9%2447.1%1462.7%74.5%
Atlanta leads the combined screen with 46 P+A + scale clinics
41.7% P+A share among 216 enriched clinics, 50.9% showing observable provider or staff scale. Atlanta is the top combined-depth market by a meaningful margin.
Chicago, Philadelphia, and Boston provide scaled overlay depth
Chicago (36), Philadelphia (29), and Boston (28) contribute meaningfully to the combined P+A + scale count. Nashville and Poughkeepsie show strong concentration from smaller enriched bases.
Combined P+A + scale count is the outreach prioritization anchor
Clinics passing both the geographic screen and showing observable scale are the most concentrated starting point. Individual review is required before any outreach.
Denominator: Enriched operating-overlay subset with validated CBSA labels. Prov/Scale = clinics with multi-doctor observed or staff 11+ observed. Priority + Actionable + Scale = clinics meeting both the Priority or Actionable screen and the provider/staff scale criterion. Online booking% = yes-rate among populated rows. Social% = any social link present. Sorted by combined Priority + Actionable and scale score. CBSAs with fewer than 20 enriched clinics excluded. Data vintage Q1 2026.
17
Expansion Framework
Acquisition Sourcing, New-Location Review, and Regulatory Execution Require Separate Decision Frameworks
The acquisition screen asks whether attractive independent clinics exist in markets with favorable competitive conditions. New-location review identifies low-density markets for further evaluation, not confirmed unmet demand. Regulatory execution determines how screened markets should be sequenced and structured based on state-level CPVM, MSO, enforcement, and compliance constraints. These three frameworks share dependencies on local market context but are not interchangeable. Using acquisition metrics to justify de novo entry, or using new-location metrics to justify acquisition strategy, are both misleading conclusions.
Market Strategy Segment Summary
Strategy segment Clinics Avg STOC Hi-Press% P+A%
Selective Acquisition Screen9,00976.30.0%100%
New-Location Review Market31359.90.0%N/A
Diligence-Heavy Acquisition Screen2773.4100.0%100%
Secondary Review22,71051.086.2%0.0%
New-Location Review Detail (Population-Backed Subset)
Segment Clinics Avg Gap Avg Density
New-Location Review313‑1.11.8
Selective Acquisition7,201‑11.86.2
Secondary Review18,685‑67.333.2
ACQUISITION-LED TRACK
9,009 clinics screen as Priority or Actionable with zero high-pressure exposure. Avg STOC Geo Index 76.3. These markets have established independent clinics in favorable competitive conditions.
Strategy: systematic outreach, CBSA-level sequencing, provider/scale signal overlay
NEW-LOCATION REVIEW TRACK
313 clinics in low-density markets identified for further evaluation. Avg supply gap ‑1.1 and avg supply density 1.8. Zero high-pressure exposure. Not confirmed unmet demand.
Strategy: supply gap confirmation, site analysis, population forecasting, de novo planning
REGULATORY EXECUTION OVERLAY
State-level CPVM, MSO, labor, telehealth, pharmacy, enforcement, and operational-complexity constraints determine how screened markets should be sequenced and structured. This layer does not change the P+A screen; it changes the transaction path.
Strategy: state regulatory sequencing, structuring guidance, diligence planning
These tracks use different logic and identify different markets
Markets strong on the acquisition screen typically show established supply. New-location review requires near-zero supply density, a condition that rarely overlaps with the best acquisition markets.
Diligence-Heavy: 27 clinics, 100% high-pressure markets where Priority + Actionable screens do exist
These rare cases pass the geographic screen despite intense local competition. Pricing, overlap, and referral analysis is required before any engagement.
Nearby Context Supply: How Platform and Chain Density Interacts With the Screen
Context Supply band Targets P+A screens P+A% Avg STOC
No visible platform / chain context6,5614,10662.6%71.2
Light platform / chain context5,2584,05477.1%73.5
Moderate platform / chain context5,13385316.6%61.7
Heavy platform / chain context15,107230.2%46.1
Denominator: Full clean acquisition universe (32,059) for strategy segment table. Population-backed subset (26,199) for supply gap and density metrics; supply metrics used only where population coverage is available. Context Supply uses full clean acquisition universe. Platform and chain locations are retained for competitive density context only; not counted as acquisition targets. Data vintage Q1 2026.
18
Appendix
Methodology Notes: These Findings Describe Observable Market Signals. Any Acquisition or Expansion Decision Requires Separate, Independent Diligence Before Engagement.
The analysis in this report supports target identification and sourcing prioritization. It is based on public-facing and geographic data available at the time of preparation. The STOC Geo Index is a screening metric, not a measure of clinic financial quality. Operating signals reflect observable evidence from public sources and should not be treated as proof of performance, quality of care, or financial outcomes. All conclusions are directional and require independent diligence before any transaction or engagement decision.
Report Methodology Reference
Topic Report-ready methodology note
UniverseTargetable independent clinics are the acquisition-screen universe. Context Supply is retained for local market calculations but is not counted as an acquisition target.
CBSA exhibitsCBSA rankings use validated CBSA labels only. Rows with blank, county-only, or non-CBSA geography labels are excluded from CBSA tables.
Service-area positionService-area position is based on distance to the nearest mapped veterinary supply point. It explains local proximity and separation; it is not a clinic-quality label.
Local market radiusNeighbor counts use market-type-adjusted radii to reflect broader service areas in smaller markets and tighter competitive zones in core markets.
STOC Geo IndexSTOC Geo Index is an acquisition-screen metric based on geographic and local supply context. It is not proof of financial or clinical quality and should not be used as diligence evidence.
Operating overlayObservable operating signals are based on public-facing information for the enriched subset only. Missing values are not treated as absence unless explicitly marked as No.
Doctor countDoctor count is used as provider-depth evidence where populated. Unknown doctor count is not interpreted as zero doctors. Doctor range distributions use populated rows only.
Staff countStaff count is used as observed team-scale evidence where populated. Staff ranges affected by spreadsheet date conversion were cleaned before analysis; original values remain auditable.
Social linksSocial link presence indicates public-facing digital visibility only. It does not measure content quality, posting frequency, engagement rate, or marketing sophistication.
New-location reviewNew-location review uses supply gap, density, and pressure metrics separately from acquisition-screen logic. Acquisition and de novo conclusions are not blended.
Regulatory feasibility overlayState-level CPVM, MSO, enforcement, labor, telehealth, pharmacy, and operational complexity are used as a strategic execution overlay. They do not change STOC Geo Index or P+A counts; they inform sequencing, structuring, and diligence planning.
Labor availabilityThe model does not directly measure local DVM supply, wage pressure, or recruitment difficulty. Markets with favorable geography may still require labor validation before acquisition or expansion conclusions.
Platform/chain absenceLower visible platform or chain presence should not be interpreted as white space by itself. It may reflect lower competitive intensity, but may also reflect limited population density, recruitment challenges, or weaker unit economics.
Service-area separationService-area position reflects distance to nearest mapped supply. It is not a direct measure of unmet demand and should be read with population-backed metrics and market diligence.
This report has been prepared for informational purposes only. STOC Advisory makes no representation as to the accuracy or completeness of forward-looking statements. All conclusions are screening-level and require independent diligence before any transaction or operational decision. Copyright © 2026 STOC Advisory, LLC. All rights reserved. Data vintage Q1 2026.
19
Corporate Development Support
How CDS Translates Into Deals
The STOC shortlist identifies the markets. CDS executes the process that converts a ranked target list into a contacted, qualified, NDA-executed pipeline. Three operational phases. Seven core deliverables.
1
Lead Identification
Investment criteria set. STOC dataset filtered by geography, density type, score, and PE status. Targets ranked before first contact.
Timeline
Week 1-2
Output
Scored target list
2
Outreach and Engagement
Custom messaging per target. Multi-touch outreach via email, phone, and direct contact. Every interaction logged in CRM.
Timeline
Week 2-6
Output
Engaged pipeline
3
Pipeline and NDA Execution
Qualified conversations tracked. NDAs coordinated. Financials requested and normalized. IC-ready summaries prepared.
Timeline
Day 30-60
Output
Executed NDA
Seven Core Deliverables
01
Deal Sourcing and Outreach
Identify and contact veterinary clinic targets before they reach the broader acquisition market.
05
Valuation Input
Financials compiled, EBITDA normalized, bid context provided.
02
Target Screening and Fit
Evaluate each opportunity against strategic, financial, and operational criteria.
06
IC Reporting
Weekly summaries and IC-ready materials delivered to sponsors.
03
CRM Management
Clean pipeline data, standardized stages, timely follow-up on every contact.
07
Post-Close Handoff
Deal context documented, transition to integration team coordinated.
04
Diligence Coordination
Stakeholders aligned, materials gathered, deal issues flagged early.
Deal Closed.
Full pipeline visibility maintained throughout every stage.
Engagement Timeline ACTIVITY WEEK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12+ Target Identification Target and market analysis Lead identification Data collection and contact enrichment CRM Platform Setup and plan the implementation Design and migrate data into CRM Integration and workflows Email outreach and KPI analysis Corp. Development Support Review of responses and processes Collaboration with management Cold calling Other Services (TAS / Financial Analysis / Quality of Earnings)
Corporate Development Support (CDS) is a separate engagement from market intelligence delivery. Timelines shown are indicative. Data vintage Q1 2026.
20
The Window Is Open.
The Question Is Whether
You Are Moving Through It.
STOC Advisory builds and executes acquisition pipelines for PE-backed platforms entering the U.S. veterinary services market.
9,036 veterinary clinics across the Priority and Actionable screen tiers represent the highest-confidence acquisition-screen pool in this dataset. Each clinic is scored, ranked, and filterable by service-area position, competitive pressure tier, and CBSA-level quality concentration. CDS targets outreach activation within two weeks of engagement. Where state-level regulatory feasibility affects execution, CDS can sequence outreach and pipeline prioritization around market depth, screen strength, and client counsel's transaction-structure guidance.
Key Contacts at STOC Advisory
Lucius Burch
Vice President
Business Development
Nashville, TN
lburch@stocadvisory.com
(615) 516-2362
Peyton Evans
Associate
Business Development
Philadelphia, PA
pevans@stocadvisory.com
(610) 767-5791
Srushti Kulkarni
Market Research
Analyst
Baltimore, MD
skulkarni@stocadvisory.com
(585) 981-0926
Ready to build your veterinary acquisition pipeline?
CDS delivers scored, outreach-ready veterinary clinic targets with confirmed contact data within two weeks of engagement.
Reach out to any of the contacts above or visit www.stocadvisory.com
Start the Conversation
STOC Advisory, LLC
600 Baltimore Ave., Suite 205, Towson, Maryland 21204    www.stocadvisory.com
Baltimore  ·  Nashville  ·  Dallas  ·  Philadelphia
© 2026 STOC Advisory, LLC. For informational purposes only.