Scanned 14 August 2026 · Re-scored 30 September 2026 (two checks removed; see How this was measured).
We scanned 536 established clinic and med spa websites across the Greater Toronto Area against the same conversion checklist. Here is what they are missing.
Half of these sites score between 80 and 94; the worst scored 20.
About this data: 536 clinic and med spa websites in the Greater Toronto Area with 30–900 Google reviews and a rating of 4.0 or better, scanned 14 August 2026 with the same automated checklist. These are established, well-reviewed businesses, not a random sample.
To cite: RelayOps, “The State of Med Spa Websites”, https://www.relayopsapp.com/state-of-med-spa-websites, August 2026.
Each row is the share of the 536 sites where the check failed. Severity is how much it costs the clinic in bookings, not how hard it is to fix.
| Missing | Severity | Sites |
|---|---|---|
| No financing option advertised | info | 99.3% 532 |
| No chatbot or live chat | medium | 78.4% 420 |
| No practitioner credentials shown | low | 54.9% 294 |
| No click-to-call phone link | high | 23.5% 126 |
| No lead capture form | high | 18.5% 99 |
| No consultation call-to-action | high | 14.6% 78 |
| No online booking | critical | 9.3% 50 |
| No written contact channel | medium | 4.5% 24 |
| Booking not reachable from the homepage | high | 3.0% 16 |
These cost visitors before any booking feature gets a chance to work.
| Technical issue | Sites |
|---|---|
| Security header(s) not set | 92.4% (495) |
| Missing meta description | 60.6% (325) |
| No <h1> heading | 58.8% (315) |
| Form field(s) without labels | 38.2% (205) |
| Broken internal link | 16.0% (86) |
| Broken outbound link | 14.6% (78) |
Every clinic here was found through Google Places and scanned by the same deterministic checklist — no human judgement in the scoring, no AI deciding what counts as a booking button. Absence is the hard claim to make honestly, so before this scan reports a feature missing it re-renders the page in a real browser: a chat widget injected by JavaScript leaves no trace in a page's served HTML, and four clinics were told they had no live chat while the widget sat on screen before that check existed.
This is not a random sample of the industry. It is every clinic we scanned, and they were filtered before they got here: 30–900 Google reviews and a rating of 4.0 or better, in the Greater Toronto Area. That skews the findings in one direction worth naming — these are established businesses with real reputations, not new or struggling ones. The gaps above are what the successful clinics are missing.
25 further sites are absent because they refused automated visitors outright. A site we could not read is not a site that scored badly, and it is not counted as one.
Two checks were removed. An earlier version of this page counted a site without on-site testimonials or a before/after gallery as missing something. For clinics offering injectables in Canada, both are restricted: Health Canada limits advertising of prescription drugs to the public to name, price and quantity, and the CPSO and CNO restrict testimonials and before/after photos. Every score above has been recalculated without them. A check for a link to the clinic's Google Business Profile has since been added to the checklist; it postdates this scan and is not in these numbers. This is general regulatory information, not legal advice.
Sites serving each city: Toronto (136), Mississauga (71), North York (64), Richmond Hill (58), Etobicoke (56), Markham (52). A chain counts once in every city it operates in, so these do not sum to the sample.