Patient Financing

Cherry is generally the cleaner and lower merchant cost, with fees starting around 1.7%-1.9% per funded contract. CareCredit's merchant discount rate spans a much wider range, roughly 1.9% to 14.9%, and the catch is that the 0%-deferred-interest plans patients find most attractive commonly carry a merchant rate near 10%. AmSpa-member clinics may access preferred CareCredit rates that narrow the gap, so the honest answer is to compare your actual plan mix: if most of your volume runs through 0% promotional plans, Cherry's flat low fee usually wins on economics, while CareCredit's range only becomes competitive on shorter, lower-subsidy plans or with AmSpa pricing.

This is one of the clearest differences. Cherry runs a soft credit pull at prequalification that does not affect the patient's credit score, and it carries no hard inquiry to get approved for a plan. CareCredit also lets patients prequalify with a soft pull, but actually applying for the card triggers a hard credit inquiry that can temporarily lower their score. For a hesitant patient at the point of sale, Cherry's no-hard-pull path removes a real psychological barrier to saying yes, which is part of why aesthetics practices favor it for in-room closing.

Deferred interest is the single biggest patient-risk distinction between these two products. CareCredit's promotional plans are deferred-interest offers: the 0% is conditional, and if the patient doesn't pay the entire balance before the promo window ends, interest is charged retroactively from the original purchase date at an APR around 26.99%-32.99%. This structure has drawn CFPB scrutiny. Cherry, by contrast, has no deferred or retroactive interest at all: qualified patients get true 0% APR, and others pay a fixed rate from 5.99% APR that never balloons. If protecting patients from a surprise retroactive bill matters to your brand, Cherry is the safer product.

CareCredit wins decisively on reach. It is accepted at 250,000+ locations and functions as a reusable healthcare credit card patients can carry across dentists, vets, optometrists, and other med spas, so many patients already hold one. Cherry is used by 60,000+ providers, which is substantial but far smaller, and its financing is arranged per treatment plan rather than as an open card. If you want to ride existing patient familiarity and a card they already use elsewhere, CareCredit's network is the advantage; if you care more about the in-clinic experience than portability, Cherry's smaller network is rarely a practical limitation.

Consumer sentiment diverges sharply. Cherry earns strong reviews, around 4.7-4.8 on Trustpilot, and holds BBB A+ accreditation, reflecting the transparency of its no-retroactive-interest model. CareCredit, despite its ubiquity, carries very poor consumer ratings, roughly 1.2 on Sitejabber and around 1.7 on PissedConsumer, with many complaints tied to surprise retroactive interest after a missed deferred-plan deadline. For a med spa whose reputation rides on patient goodwill, the experience gap is worth weighing as heavily as the rate sheet, since a patient burned by a retroactive interest bill associates that pain with your clinic.