Skip to content
MegAligna

Product

Scheduling Clinical notes Intake Patient portal Billing Reporting

ABA

ABA therapy software ABA scheduling ABA data collection Supervision calculator

Compare

All comparisons CentralReach alternative CentralReach vs Rethink Office Puzzle vs CentralReach Noteable vs CentralReach CentralReach pricing Office Puzzle vs Aloha ABA Motivity alternative Office Puzzle vs ABA Matrix Office Puzzle vs Motivity Office Puzzle vs Rethink Raven alternative TherapyNotes alternative SimplePractice alternative Jane alternative WebPT alternative Apollo PT pricing MWTherapy pricing ChiroTouch alternative Genesis Chiropractic Platinum Chiropractic

Switch

Migrating your data From CentralReach From Motivity From Raven From TherapyNotes From SimplePractice From Jane From WebPT

Free tools

All free tools All guides All templates 8-minute rule calculator Superbill generator The 8-minute rule Superbill vs CMS-1500 CMS-1500 field guide Superbill template Patient intake form ABA session note SOAP, DAP and BIRP notes Authorization tracker
Pricing
About Contact
Start free trial

Comparison

Noteable vs CentralReach — how to choose

Noteable and CentralReach are both sold to behavioral health and ABA providers, with different centres of gravity: CentralReach at agencies wanting one platform across the whole revenue cycle, Noteable at organizations whose first problem is documentation and clinical workflow. Neither publishes a public rate card, so both evaluations begin with a quote.

Start free trial See pricing

Two different first problems

Providers who put these two on the same shortlist are usually solving one of two problems, and which one they are solving decides the answer before any feature list is opened.

CentralReach sells breadth: one system intended to carry an organization from intake through claim submission and remittance, with a decade of accumulated depth aimed at large, multi-site agencies. Noteable’s centre of gravity is documentation and clinical workflow — the note, the treatment plan, and what happens to them afterwards — for behavioral health providers whose pain is what clinicians spend their evenings doing rather than what the billing department spends its month-end on.

Both descriptions can be true of the same organization at different times, which is why this comparison so often reduces to sequencing: is the documentation burden costing you more this year than the revenue cycle is?

What to compare them on

Structure for your own evaluation. Cells are deliberately unfilled pending dated public sources — see the note above.

  MegAligna Noteable CentralReach
Published pricing Yes No No
Priced per active clinical seat, clients free Yes No No
Direct electronic claim submission 3 No No Yes
  • 3 The row that most often decides this comparison, and the row where we lose. Providers that submit their own claims electronically should not be evaluating us at all.

The questions worth putting to both, in your own numbers rather than at list price:

  • What is the total at our actual headcount and caseload?
  • How long does a clinician take to complete a routine note, measured rather than demonstrated?
  • What happens to in-progress documentation when a device loses connectivity?
  • What does a full export of our own records look like on the day we leave?

If documentation is the reason you are shopping, insist on timing a routine note — written by one of your own clinicians, on a test client — during the evaluation. Note-completion time is the one number that separates these products in daily use and the one that never appears on a feature grid.

Where MegAligna fits, and where it does not

What is genuinely different here: prices are published, billing is per active clinical seat with clients never charged for, and session capture survives a dropped connection rather than losing in-progress data — which is a documentation claim before it is a technical one, because the note a technician loses in a basement with no signal is the note they rewrite from memory that evening. See clinical notes for what that actually looks like.

What is genuinely missing: claims are not transmitted to payers. Finished charges and CMS-1500 field data go to your biller.

Three situations make staying put the right call, and they apply to either incumbent: you submit your own claims, you depend on a capability built over a decade that we have not built, or you are mid-audit.

Common questions

Which one is cheaper?
Neither publishes a rate card, so any figure you find for either is a third-party estimate. Both evaluations start with a quote against your own headcount and caseload, and the two vendors do not necessarily price on the same unit — which is what makes the comparison hard rather than expensive.
Is Noteable only for ABA?
It is sold across behavioral health rather than to ABA alone, which is part of why it appears on shortlists next to a platform built around ABA billing specifically. If your organization runs mixed behavioral health and ABA caseloads, ask both vendors how a single client record handles both.
Is CentralReach private-equity owned?
No. CentralReach was acquired by Roper Technologies in March 2025. Roper is a strategic acquirer that holds businesses long-term, which is a materially different ownership model from private equity, and the distinction matters if your concern is what happens to the product roadmap.
Can we run a new system alongside the old one?
Eventually, and it tells you more than any demo — but a parallel run puts real client records in the new system, so it waits until a business associate agreement covers that system. Before then, time routine notes on test clients: note-completion speed shows up just as clearly without real data. When a pilot does happen, MegAligna's per-seat pricing means it costs what one team costs rather than what the organization costs.

Time a test note yourself

14 days, no card required. Use made-up patients while you evaluate — real patient information waits until a business associate agreement is in place.

Start a 14-day free trial