For practices tired of paying for data collection and a practice management system.
Your data collection shouldn’t stop at the graph.
Catalyst (now sold as Ensora Data Collection) is a capable, widely-used data-collection tool — but it is only data collection. Scheduling, notes, authorizations and billing live in another system you also pay for. Wilma™ does all of it on one record, so the data a BCBA takes in session is the same data that drafts the note and scrubs the claim.
Why operators compare them
Why practices choose Wilma™ over Catalyst.
One system instead of two subscriptions.
Catalyst is a data-collection product. To actually run a practice you pair it with a separate practice management and billing system, then pay for both and reconcile between them. Wilma™ is one platform: data collection, notes, scheduling, authorizations, billing and payroll tracking on a single record, one bill, one login.
The data becomes the note and the claim.
When data collection is a separate product, the note is retyped and the claim is assembled by hand from whatever made it across the integration. In Wilma™ the session data drafts the note, checks the authorization and feeds the claim — because it never left the system.
Flat, published pricing you can model.
Data-collection tools in this category have historically been priced per client, which means your bill grows with your caseload. Wilma™ publishes flat per-user pricing — $30/user Core, +$20 AI, +$10 phone — so you can budget from headcount, not census.
We’ll be fair about Catalyst.
Catalyst is mature, well-known and trusted by a lot of clinicians — we are not claiming to out-collect it on raw data-collection depth. The argument for Wilma™ is that data collection is one part of running a practice, and the other parts should not be a second vendor.
Side by side
Wilma™ vs Catalyst, feature by feature.
| Capability | Wilma™ | Catalyst |
|---|---|---|
| Data collection | ✅ Native, included | ✅ Mature, specialised |
| Scheduling | ✅ Native | ❌ Separate system |
| Billing / claims | ✅ Native + in-house | ❌ Separate system |
| Authorization tracking | ✅ Native | ❌ Separate system |
| Payroll tracking & exports | ✅ Native | ❌ Separate system |
| Built-in phone & IVR | ✅ Native | ❌ Not offered |
| Telehealth | ✅ Zoom / Teams / Meet integration | ❌ Not offered |
| Pricing model | ✅ Flat $30/user, 10 min | ⚠️ Historically per client |
| Published pricing | ✅ Yes | ❌ Quote-only |
Comparison based on publicly available information as of August 2026. Ensora Health, Therapy Brands, WebABA, AccuPoint, Catalyst and DataFinch are trademarks of their respective owners.
What you get on Wilma™
What changes on one agentic platform.
One record, end to end.
The trial data a BCBA takes at 10am is the same record that drafts the note, checks the authorization and builds the claim. No integration to babysit.
Priced per user, not per client.
Grow your caseload without your software bill growing with it. Flat per-user pricing you can model on one line.
Agentic AI on top of your own data.
Notes drafted from the session data and claims scrubbed before submission — always human-approved.
One vendor to call.
When data collection and billing are the same system, there is no argument about whose side the problem is on.
Pricing and reviews
Comparing Catalyst pricing and reviews? Start with the buying questions.
Bottom-funnel buyers usually need three answers: what it costs, what real operators say after implementation, and whether the platform owns the workflow or depends on add-ons.
Pricing clarity
Wilma™ publishes flat pricing: Core is $30/user/month with a 10-licence minimum, so an account starts at $300/month, plus optional AI and Phone add-ons. Use that as the baseline when a Catalyst pricing page or quote requires a sales process.
Review signals
When reading Catalyst reviews, separate ease-of-use praise from operational outcomes: clean claims, authorization control, onboarding speed, support responsiveness, and whether teams still need extra tools.
Native vs integrated
The strongest reviews usually come when scheduling, notes, billing, data, EVV, phone, and AI share one record. Every separate vendor adds another support path and another place work can drift.
FAQ
Questions operators ask before they switch.
Is Wilma™ a good Catalyst alternative?
What is Catalyst, and who owns it now?
Does Catalyst do billing and scheduling?
Is Wilma™’s data collection as good as Catalyst’s?
How does pricing compare?
Can I migrate from Catalyst to Wilma™?
Is Wilma™ HIPAA compliant?
See data collection that reaches the claim.
Bring a real program and a real authorization. We’ll show you the whole path — session to submitted claim — in 30 minutes.
Keep reading
Related guides on running an ABA practice — the same operation, from a different angle.
- WebABA alternativeOne platform built together, compared against a product inside a portfolio.
- AccuPoint alternativePractice management, EVV and billing compared on a single record.
- Therapy Brands alternativeA portfolio of acquired products, or one platform — the trade-off stated plainly.
- Switching from CentralReachWhat a migration actually involves — data, timeline and downtime.
- CentralReach alternativeWhere Wilma and CentralReach differ on scope, pricing model and rollout.
- Best ABA practice management softwareThe main platforms compared on scope, pricing model and who each one fits.
Cookie Notice
We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site usage. You can opt out at any time.