Top 10 ABA Session Notes Software Compared (2026)

Q: Which ABA practice management platforms have AI session notes?

Seven of the ten ABA practice management platforms reviewed have some form of AI session note generation: CentralReach (NoteDraftAI + NoteGuardAI), RethinkBH (Session Note AI), Theralytics, Raven Health, Artemis ABA, Passage Health (via Frontera AI), and VGPM. Motivity, AlohaABA, and Ensora Health have not launched AI session note generation in their ABA products. Ensora is the one to read carefully: its Ensai AI suite, including the AI Session Assistant, ships in TheraNest and Fusion, the general behavioral-health and therapy products under the same corporate parent, and in none of its ABA products. The bigger differentiator across the seven is what the AI actually does: some fill the entire structured note form (CentralReach, RethinkBH, VGPM) while others generate a single narrative summary (Theralytics, Raven Health, Artemis, Passage Health). Across all seven, only VGPM proposes the AI's output below each field for the therapist to accept or reject, rather than writing it directly into the field.

Q: What's the difference between summary-only AI and full form-filling AI?

Summary-only AI generates a single narrative blob that lands in one text area on the note. The therapist gets a paragraph or two and can edit it, but the rest of the note's structured fields stay empty. Full form-filling AI populates every field of the note template (subjective, objective, assessment, plan, behavior data, intervention notes, etc.) so the therapist sees a complete first draft. For ABA, where payer audits expect specific observable language in specific fields, full form-filling is meaningfully more useful than summary-only output.

Q: What features should ABA session notes software include?

At minimum: customizable note templates, ABA data auto-injection from data collection, configurable signature workflows, and HIPAA-compliant audit trails. The features that move the needle add: a quick-notes pad on the data collection screen, in-session note editing alongside data collection, a one-click prior-note copy, full form-filling AI (vs summary only), AI suggestions reviewed field-by-field (vs auto-fill), field-level AI revision with user direction, per-field AI guidance set by admins in the form builder, per-billing-code template routing, and submission timing controls.

Q: Is AI session note generation safe under audit?

It depends on the UX, not the AI itself. Auto-fill AI (where the model writes directly into the field) puts the burden of catching errors on the therapist as a copy editor. Suggestion-mode AI (where the model proposes text below the field that must be accepted) keeps the therapist as the author of every word that enters the note. From a documentation-integrity standpoint, suggestion mode is more defensible. The BACB practice guidelines emphasize practitioner accountability for clinical documentation; suggestion mode preserves the chain of accountability more cleanly.

Q: Which platform has the deepest custom form builder?

Motivity documents 13+ field types in its template builder (Text Box, Footnote, Initial Text, Checkboxes, Dropdown, Radio Buttons, Duration, Number, Text Line, Date, Time, Imported Fields, Signature). CentralReach and RethinkBH both support per-billing-code (or per-funder) template auto-application, which Motivity does not. Theralytics has a narrower version: payer-specific template overrides at the payer service-code level, built by its support team on request rather than configured self-service. VGPM's builder offers 10 field types with multiple configurations each AND self-service per-billing-code auto-application. The other five platforms in this guide offer customizable templates at varying depths, but do not publicly document either of these features at the same level.

Q: Which platform has a prior-note copy feature?

Motivity has a 'Cloning a Note' article in their knowledge base, which is the closest documented match. Raven Health uses AI to cross-reference the prior session against current data (similar effect, different mechanism). VGPM has a one-click verbatim Pull Forward used heavily by ABA, SLP, OT, and other disciplines where notes shift only slightly session to session. The other seven platforms in this comparison do not publicly document a verbatim prior-note copy feature.

Q: How will the 2027 CPT code overhaul affect ABA session notes software?

The AMA approved a full revision of the adaptive behavior code set effective January 1, 2027: six new codes, revisions to the current 97151 through 97158 set, and retirement of the Category III T-codes 0362T and 0373T. For session-notes software the consequential one is 97X3X, non-face-to-face professional work (protocol review, data analysis, discharge planning, technician debriefs). Every platform in this comparison builds notes around a scheduled appointment, and 97X3X work has no appointment, so a note template keyed to a session record cannot capture it. The practical questions to ask a vendor now are whether the system can produce a billable documentation record not tied to an appointment, whether an administrator can remap templates to a new code family without waiting for a vendor release, and what happens to templates that reference a retired code on January 1, 2027. No vendor publicly documents a 97X3X-ready workflow as of August 2026, which is expected given the final rule is not due until roughly November 2026.

Q: Do any platforms control when a session note can be submitted?

Across the ten ABA practice management platforms reviewed, only VGPM publicly documents a time-window submission gate (15 minutes before scheduled session end). Artemis ABA has 'Session Note Validation,' but it checks data completeness rather than session timing. The other eight platforms allow therapists to submit session notes at any point during (and in some cases before) the appointment. This is a real audit consideration that practice owners often overlook.

TL;DR: Top 10 ABA Session Notes Software in 2026

The short answer. Ten ABA practice management platforms carry session-notes functionality in 2026: AlohaABA, Artemis ABA, CentralReach, Ensora Health, Motivity, Passage Health, Raven Health, RethinkBH, Theralytics, and VGPM. Seven of the ten have AI note generation, but the AI splits into three meaningfully different behaviors: full form-filling (CentralReach, RethinkBH, VGPM) populates every structured field, summary-only (Artemis, Passage, Raven, Theralytics) generates one narrative blob and leaves the rest of the form empty, and suggestion mode (VGPM only) proposes text below each field for the therapist to accept or reject rather than writing into the field directly. AlohaABA, Motivity, and Ensora's ABA products have no AI note generation. For audit defensibility the UX matters more than the model: suggestion mode keeps the clinician as the author of record. VGPM covers the most dimensions in this comparison; CentralReach leads on enterprise scale, Motivity on form-builder depth, Theralytics on price, and Raven on mobile-first field workflow.

How this comparison was built, and who wrote it. VGPM is our product, so treat this guide as informed but interested. Every cell in the comparison table comes from public vendor marketing, help documentation, and user reviews, and cells we could not verify publicly are marked Unknown rather than guessed. We did not run head-to-head trials of all ten platforms, and features gated behind sales demos may differ from what vendors document publicly. Where a competitor leads on a dimension, this guide says so. Last verified: August 2026.

Session notes are the daily clinical surface most therapists touch more than any other in an ABA practice. The major ABA practice management platforms have converged on a similar feature set at the surface level (customizable templates, e-signatures, mobile capture, AI assistance), but the specifics of how each handles the AI workflow, form customization, and audit safeguards diverge sharply.

The ten platforms compared in this guide:

AlohaABA: Compliance-focused all-in-one, no AI note generation
Artemis ABA: AI-first, mobile-first, Salesforce-cloud workflow (summary-style AI)
CentralReach: Enterprise; NoteDraftAI + NoteGuardAI as flagship AI tooling (full form-filling AI)
Ensora Health: Multi-discipline portfolio; the ABA Suite has no AI note generation. The Ensai AI Session Assistant (summary-style) ships on TheraNest and Fusion only
Motivity: Clinical-first, 13+ field types, no AI note generation
Passage Health: All-in-one EMR/EHR; AI via Frontera integration (summary-style AI)
Raven Health: Mobile-first, AI-generated session narratives (summary-style AI)
RethinkBH: Multi-disciplinary EHR with Session Note AI (full form-filling AI)
Theralytics: Affordable, ONC-certified, generative AI narratives (summary-style AI)
VGPM (The Therapist-Friendly Notes Engine): full form-filling AI with per-field suggestion review and submission timing controls

If feature breadth is your top criterion, VGPM covers the most dimensions documented in this guide (notably the only suggestion-mode AI UX, the only per-field admin AI direction box, and the only documented submission-time lockout). For other priorities (multi-disciplinary scope, enterprise scale, lowest entry price, mobile-only field workflow), different platforms lead.

What Makes ABA Session Notes Different

ABA session notes are not the same as a SOAP note in primary care. A defensible ABA note ties observable behavior data (trial counts, frequency, duration, ABC) to authorization units, billing codes, and progress against treatment plan goals. It also lives inside a payer-audit context where missing observable language or unsupported claims can cost the practice tens of thousands of dollars in clawbacks.

That makes the documentation surface harder than in adjacent disciplines, and explains why a generic "AI session notes" feature built for mental health does not transfer cleanly to ABA. Platforms that handle ABA notes well share four traits:

They treat data collection and the note as one connected workflow, not two separate screens.
Their AI uses session context (goals, trials, ABCs) rather than just clinician dictation.
Their form builder can adapt to different billing codes (97153 for direct therapy looks different from 97155 for protocol modification).
They keep audit trails intact: who wrote what, when, with what AI involvement.

Key Features to Evaluate

Marketing pages all say "AI-powered" and "customizable." The features that actually affect a therapist's day are more specific. We scored each platform on eleven dimensions (sources cited inline below):

Quick-notes pad on the data collection screen: a scratch space on the same screen as data entry, viewable later when working on the formal note.
In-session note editing alongside data collection: edit the formal note without leaving the data screen, no context switch.
Prior-note copy (one-click verbatim): copy the last session note exactly into the new note, edit only what changed. Useful where notes shift little session to session.
Custom note templates with depth: 10+ field types AND per-billing-code (or per-funder) template auto-application.
Auto-populated session metadata: client, date, time, location, staff name, and signatures populate the header without re-entry.
AI fills the entire note form (vs summary only): does the AI generate content for every structured field of the note (subjective, objective, behavior data, intervention notes, etc.), or does it produce a single narrative blob in one text area? Full form-filling is the more useful pattern for ABA.
AI suggestions reviewed field-by-field (vs auto-fill): when the AI generates content, does it write directly into the field (auto-fill) or propose suggestions below the field that must be explicitly accepted, rejected, or rewritten? Suggestion-mode preserves accountability more cleanly under audit.
Field-level AI revision with user direction: can the therapist give the AI a directive ("more clinical," "shorter," "add behavior data") and have only that field regenerate, without touching the rest of the note?
Per-field AI guidance set by admins: when the admin builds the form, can they attach per-field instructions that show up to the therapist while writing AND get fed to the AI when generating that field, hidden from the final PDF?
ABA data flow into the note: trial counts, frequency, duration, and ABC data populate the relevant note fields automatically, no double-entry.
Submission timing controls: does the platform prevent submitting a note before a configurable point near session end, to guard against premature filing?

The Ten Platforms (alphabetical)

AlohaABA

Positioning. AlohaABA pitches itself as the all-in-one ABA practice management + billing platform with "best value" and Capterra awards as proof points (alohaaba.com). Session notes are framed as a compliance and billing accuracy feature with HIPAA-compliant tools and auto-attached CPT/HCPCS codes for payer-ready claims. The newer Welina mobile companion (built by BCBAs) closes the in-session data-collection gap that historically required Motivity, Catalyst, or Hi Rasmus integrations.

Strengths. Static and Dynamic fields auto-populate session date, start/end time, duration, client alias, signatures, and staff name. Templates support 7 static fields plus configurable Custom fields (template builder docs). Welina syncs session data into AlohaABA for note-writing.

Limitations. No AI note generation publicly marketed. Custom field documentation references checkboxes and text only, fewer than 10 distinct field types. No documented per-billing-code form auto-application, no prior-note copy, and no submission-time gate.

Best for small-to-mid-sized practices that want straightforward billing and scheduling with predictable per-staff pricing and don't currently rely on AI for note generation.

Artemis ABA

Positioning. Artemis positions session notes as an AI-first, mobile-first, "all in one flow" experience built on Salesforce cloud (artemisaba.com). Marketing emphasizes efficiency and billing safety: "AI-generated session summaries turn collected data into clean, professional notes instantly."

Strengths. "All in One Flow" enables data, assessments, and custom notes from a single screen. Multi-Session Switching lets providers toggle between active sessions. Session Note Validation runs as a billing safeguard. AI generates session summaries from collected data.

Limitations. AI is summary-style ("session summaries... clean, professional notes") rather than full form-filling, and the UX is auto-fill rather than per-field suggestion mode. No documented per-field admin AI direction box, no field-level AI revision feature, no prior-note copy, and no submission time gate (though Validation alerts on missing notes/signatures). Form-builder field types not publicly enumerated.

Best for practices that want a unified mobile experience and AI auto-generation, especially those open to a Salesforce-based platform.

CentralReach (NoteDraftAI + NoteGuardAI)

Positioning. CentralReach leads heavily with AI as the differentiator, marketing two AI products in tandem: CR NoteDraftAI (human-in-the-loop AI agent that converts collected session data into a structured narrative draft) and CR NoteGuardAI (post-submission audit/repair) (centralreach.com/products/notedraftai). The pitch frames RBTs as "editors and quality assurance providers" rather than note-writers, citing 80% audit-time reduction and finalization in "about 30 seconds."

Strengths. Full template builder with multiple field types (text, multiple-choice, checkboxes, dates, times) plus appointment/service-code presets. Templates are explicitly associated to service codes so the form auto-applies per billing code (template-to-service-code association). NoteDraftAI fills the structured note template from collected session data (form-filling, not just a single summary blob). Recent CR Mobile 26.2 release added a custom Session Note Template section enabling NoteDraftAI users to input personalized session context, hidden from the final PDF.

Limitations. NoteDraftAI's UI is "edit the draft" rather than per-field accept/reject suggestion mode (based on public marketing; gated demos may show different UX). The AI direction box is template-level, not per-field. No documented prior-note copy or submission-time gate.

Best for large, multi-state organizations with dedicated admin/billing teams and existing Cari ecosystem investment.

Ensora Health

Positioning. Ensora consolidated TheraNest, AccuPoint, NPAWorks, and others into a multi-product portfolio. The current homepage features TheraNest (mental health) and Fusion (PT/OT/SLP) as core EHRs (ensorahealth.com). The legacy ABA Suite page exists but ABA marketing has been de-emphasized; where ABA documentation is discussed, it's framed as SOAP-note-flow-from-data-collection.

Strengths. SOAP notes flow directly from data collection into practice management. Appointment-to-SOAP matching binds session metadata (client, staff, date, start/end) to the note.

Limitations. No AI note generation in any Ensora ABA product. In July 2026 Ensora launched Ensai, a portfolio-wide AI brand marketed as "One AI Across Five Therapy Disciplines," which includes the AI Session Assistant. Ensai ships in TheraNest and Fusion; it does not ship in ABA Therapy, CodeMetro, or Data Collection. This is worth stating precisely because the marketing invites the opposite conclusion: one of Ensai's five named disciplines is "behavioral health," which in Ensora's own boilerplate denotes TheraNest, the mental and behavioral health EHR, not ABA. Where the AI Session Assistant does ship, it is summary-style and dictation-driven ("ready-to-edit clinical notes" via ambient listening), not full form-filling. Beyond AI, ABA-specific feature depth around session notes is not deeply documented post-rebranding: no per-field accept/reject UX, field-level AI revision, per-field admin AI direction box, prior-note copy, or submission lockout.

Best for multi-disciplinary practices that operate ABA alongside mental health or rehab and want all of those under one corporate umbrella.

Motivity

Positioning. Motivity positions session notes as part of a clinical-excellence + completion-assurance story rather than an AI story (motivity.net feature page). Key marketing emphasizes their interval-based "Session Note Completion Assurance," configurable QA/approval workflow, and depth of customizable template fields. AI marketing in 2025 was concentrated on a Scheduling AI Coach and AI Optimizer, not note generation.

Strengths. Robust template builder with 13+ field types: Text Box, Footnote, Initial Text, Checkboxes, Dropdown, Radio Buttons, Duration, Number, Text Line, Date, Time, Imported Fields, Signature (Motivity template docs). CASP note templates were added in February 2025. Imported Fields auto-pull learner name, demographics, author credentials, organization info; date/time imported based on shift start/end. A "Cloning a Note" KB article suggests adjacent-to-prior-note-copy functionality. Once a note is signed, it locks until unsigned.

Limitations. No AI note generation feature is documented. Per-billing-code template auto-application is not explicitly documented. Session Note Completion Assurance is a reminder/QA system, not a submission time gate.

Best for BCBA-led practices where clinical data quality and therapist workflow are top priorities, and AI note generation is not a current must-have.

Passage Health

Positioning. Passage Health markets itself as an all-in-one EMR/EHR for autism care providers with a strong same-screen-workflow focus. The standout marketing line on its clinical page is "Edit notes and collect data simultaneously," combined with "Custom session notes" and "Auto-summarize session data" (passagehealth.com/clinical). AI clinical notes are delivered via the Frontera AI integration.

Strengths. Inline editing of notes during data collection is publicly marketed. "Automatically pull information onto session notes from client and team member profiles" plus auto-record geolocations from the mobile app handle metadata. "Auto-summarize session data" pulls trial, task analysis, duration, frequency, rate, interval, scale, and ABC data into the note.

Limitations. AI is summary-style ("data summarize within the session note automatically"), not full form-filling, and the UX is auto-fill rather than per-field suggestion mode. "Create custom prompts" exists but appears organization-level, not per-field. No documented prior-note copy and no submission lockout.

Best for practices that want strong inline editing during data collection, customizable forms, and an EMR/EHR feature footprint at competitive pricing.

Raven Health

Positioning. Raven Health markets AI-generated session narratives as a flagship capability (ravenhealth.com AI features), with one-click generation as the headline UX. Mobile-first positioning is central, built by a BCBA who spent years working in homes and schools, with offline iOS/Android data collection and real-time sync.

Strengths. AI cross-references each new record against all previously recorded session data, generating a narrative summary. Auto-generated summaries based on real data collected. Configurable templates to "match documentation style, clinical focus, and workflow." Offline mobile capture is a notable strength.

Limitations. AI output is summary-style ("session narratives," "auto-generated summaries"), not full form-filling, and the UX is one-click auto-fill rather than per-field suggestion mode. No documented field-level AI revision, no per-field admin AI direction box, no per-billing-code form auto-application, and no submission-time gate. AI cross-referencing is closer to a contextual draft than a true verbatim prior-note copy.

Best for field-heavy practices (in-home, community, school) where mobile usability and offline-first capture are the primary needs.

RethinkBH (Session Note AI)

Positioning. RethinkBH positions Session Note AI as a recently launched, enterprise-grade automation tool, HIPAA-compliant, built on Azure OpenAI, designed for "mid-market to enterprise-level ABA therapy organizations" (rethinkbehavioralhealth.com Session Note AI). Marketing emphasizes compliance, payer alignment, and "full editorial control to review, refine and confirm" the AI-generated summary.

Strengths. Strongest documented per-CPT/funder template architecture among the platforms reviewed: Billable and Non-Billable session note templates with funder-specific routing (Billable/Non-Billable docs). Session Note AI fills structured fields based on the chosen template, not just a single summary blob. Real-time alerts if session data changes after a note is completed, with instant regeneration of summaries. Mobile RethinkBH+ app integrates scheduling, data collection, notes, and billing.

Limitations. Session Note AI is review-and-edit (auto-fill into fields) rather than per-field accept/reject. Regeneration is data-change-driven, not user-directive driven. No documented per-field admin AI direction box, no prior-note copy, and no submission lockout.

Best for mid-to-large multi-disciplinary organizations that need EVV compliance and a Medicaid-heavy footprint across multiple service lines.

Theralytics

Positioning. Theralytics positions session notes as part of an integrated "all-in-one ONC Certified" practice management workflow, emphasizing affordability, e-signatures with GPS, and offline mobile capture (theralytics.net documentation page). Their generative AI feature for session notes is marketed as turning data into "narrative summaries" in "just a few clicks."

Strengths. Generative AI drafts narrative summaries from data collected during each session. E-signatures with GPS auto-attach. Clinical data can optionally be included in the session note PDF. A "Clipboard" tab on the data collection screen functions as a collaborative inter-provider notes space (data collection docs).

Limitations. AI output is summary-style, not full form-filling, and the UX is auto-fill ("therapists can quickly review and finalize"). Multiple Capterra reviewers cite "lack of customizable documents" as a limitation; templates are onboarded via support rather than a self-serve form builder with 10+ field types. No documented per-billing-code form auto-application, no per-field AI direction box, no prior-note copy, and no submission-time gate.

Best for budget-conscious practices that want a credible all-in-one platform with AI assistance at a low entry price.

VGPM (The Therapist-Friendly Notes Engine)

Positioning. VGPM positions session notes as "The Therapist-Friendly Notes Engine", the most therapist-friendly session notes among the platforms reviewed: every AI suggestion is reviewed by the therapist, every form is built for the therapist's billing code, and notes finish in-session. The framing is "AI suggests, the therapist decides."

Strengths. Quick-notes pad on the data collection screen, viewable later. Inline note editing from the same page (no context switch). Per-billing-code custom forms with 10 field types and multiple configurations each, applied automatically when the session starts. AI fills the entire note form (full form-filling, not just a summary blob), with proposed updates appearing below each field rather than overwriting them. The therapist clicks Accept or Reject per field, with Accept All and Reject All available for one-click handling of any fields not yet decided. AI Update lets the therapist redirect the AI on a single field ("more clinical," "shorter," "add behavior data"). Per-field admin AI direction box visible to the therapist while writing, fed to the AI when generating, hidden from the final PDF. ABA data collection auto-flows into the note. One-click prior-note copy (Pull Forward) used heavily across ABA, SLP, OT, and other disciplines. Submission locks until 15 minutes before scheduled session end (the only documented time-window submission gate among the platforms reviewed).

Limitations. VGPM is newer to market than CentralReach or RethinkBH, with a smaller footprint at enterprise scale. ABA-first by design; multi-disciplinary support is via the same toolset rather than a separate product line.

Best for ABA practices seeking streamlined operations (10 to 100+ staff) where therapists routinely write notes after hours and audit defensibility around AI-generated content matters.

Master Comparison Table

Feature	AlohaABA	Artemis	CentralReach	Ensora	Motivity	Passage	Raven	RethinkBH	Theralytics	VGPM
Quick-notes pad on data screen	Unknown	Partial	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Partial	Unknown	Unknown	Partial	Yes
In-session note editing alongside data collection	Unknown	Partial	Partial	Partial	Partial	Yes	Partial	Partial	Unknown	Yes
Prior-note copy (verbatim)	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	"Cloning" (closest)	Unknown	AI cross-ref (different)	Unknown	Unknown	Yes
10+ field types	<10	Unknown	Yes	Partial	13+	Partial	Configurable	Yes	Limited	10
Per-billing-code template routing	No	No	Yes (per service code)	No	No	No	No	Yes (per funder/CPT)	Partial (support-built, per payer service code)	Yes
Auto-populated session metadata	Yes	Unknown	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Partial	Partial	Partial	Yes
AI fills the full note form (vs summary only)	No AI	Summary only	Full form-fill	No AI in ABA	No AI	Summary only	Summary only	Full form-fill	Summary only	Full form-fill
AI suggestions reviewed field-by-field (vs auto-fill)	No AI	Auto-fill	Auto-fill	No AI in ABA	No AI	Auto-fill	Auto-fill	Auto-fill	Auto-fill	Suggestion mode
Field-level AI revision with user direction	No AI	Unknown	Unknown	No AI in ABA	No AI	Unknown	Unknown	Partial (data-driven)	Unknown	Yes
Per-field AI guidance set by admins	No AI	Unknown	Template-level	No AI in ABA	No AI	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Yes
ABA data flow into note	Partial	Yes	Yes	Yes	Partial	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Submission timing controls	No	Partial (validation)	No	Unknown	No	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Yes (15 min)

Cells reflect public marketing, help docs, and reviews as of May 2026, with the Ensora AI rows and the Theralytics per-billing-code row re-verified in August 2026. Cells gated behind demos may differ from public documentation.

The 2027 Question No Session-Notes Comparison Is Asking Yet

Every feature above describes how a platform handles the code set that exists today. That code set is being replaced.

The AMA CPT Editorial Panel approved a full revision of the adaptive behavior code set in September 2025, and the ABA Coding Coalition has confirmed six new codes, revisions to the current 97151 through 97158 set, and retirement of the Category III T-codes 0362T and 0373T, all effective January 1, 2027. The specific numbers stay confidential until the 2027 CPT book publishes in late 2026, but CMS's proposed CY2027 Physician Fee Schedule (released July 2026, comments closing September 2026) already reveals the structure under AMA placeholders.

For session-notes software specifically, one of the six matters far more than the others: 97X3X, non-face-to-face professional work. It covers protocol review, data analysis, discharge and transition planning, and technician debriefs. Today that work has no billing home outside 97151, which is why most practices simply absorb it.

Here is why that is a documentation-architecture problem and not just a billing one. Every platform in this comparison builds session notes around an appointment: a scheduled session, a client, a start and end time, a therapist, and observable data collected during it. 97X3X has no session. A BCBA reviewing graphs on a Tuesday evening is performing billable professional work with no appointment to attach a note to. A note template keyed to an appointment record cannot capture it, and a per-billing-code routing rule cannot route to a code the template system has no event for.

So the question to put to every vendor on this list, well before January 2027, is narrower and more useful than "will you support the new codes":

Can your system generate a billable documentation record that is not tied to a scheduled appointment? If the answer is no, 97X3X will require a workaround regardless of how good the session-note editor is.
Can note templates be added or remapped by an administrator, or does a new code family require a vendor release? Platforms with self-service per-billing-code routing (CentralReach, RethinkBH, VGPM per the table above) are structurally better positioned here than platforms where templates are vendor-configured.
What happens to a note template that references a retired code on January 1, 2027? Templates hard-coded to 0362T or 0373T will generate denials from day one, and the practices most exposed are the ones with the most customized templates.
Will indirect time be capturable at the task level during 2026? Practices that already track protocol review and data analysis as discrete, timestamped work can bill 97X3X on day one. Practices that cannot will spend the first quarter of 2027 reconstructing it.

None of the ten vendors publicly documents a 97X3X-ready workflow as of August 2026, which is expected: the final rule is not due until roughly November 2026. That is precisely why this belongs in a buying decision made now. A platform selected in 2026 will be the platform absorbing this change, and the difference between an administrator remapping a template and a practice waiting on a vendor release is a quarter of revenue.

The coding mechanics live in the ABA billing codes reference. The documentation failure modes that already cost practices money, before any of this lands, are in 8 ABA session note mistakes that trigger claim denials.

How to Choose

Before booking demos, decide what you actually need:

If your therapists routinely write notes after hours, prioritize platforms where the AI handling and form structure let notes finish during the session. Full form-filling AI plus auto-injected ABA data plus per-field admin directions is the combination that works.
If you are building per-payer documentation requirements into your forms, look hard at form-builder depth. Per-billing-code (CentralReach, VGPM) or per-funder (RethinkBH) auto-application matters more than total field count alone.
If audit defensibility is a top concern, ask vendors directly: does the AI write into the field, or propose suggestions for the therapist to accept? The answer changes the chain of accountability.
If you support multi-disciplinary practices (ABA plus SLP, OT, mental health), a prior-note copy matters more than for ABA-only practices because notes for those disciplines often shift only slightly session to session. Ensora and RethinkBH also bring multi-discipline scope as separate products.
If you serve Medicaid clients or work with strict payers, confirm the platform has a submission-time gate, an audit trail of AI involvement, and per-field accountability.
If field-first mobile experience is your primary bottleneck, Raven Health is built for that use case. AlohaABA's Welina addresses some of it.
If budget is the primary constraint, Theralytics has the lowest entry price among platforms with credible ABA-specific feature depth.

Final Verdict: Who Has the Deepest Session-Notes Coverage?

Across the ten platforms reviewed in May 2026, VGPM has the broadest documented coverage of the eleven dimensions in this guide. It's the only platform with a per-field accept/reject AI suggestion UX, the only one with a per-field admin AI direction box, the only one with a one-click verbatim prior-note copy, and the only one with a submission-time lockout. The honest tradeoff is that VGPM's footprint at enterprise scale is smaller than CentralReach's or RethinkBH's, and the brand is newer to market.

For other priorities, the field has clear leaders:

CentralReach (NoteDraftAI) has the largest installed base, the deepest analytics/operations ecosystem, and a strong service-code-to-template architecture. Its AI is full form-filling but auto-fill style rather than suggestion mode.
RethinkBH has the strongest documented per-funder template routing and is the natural pick for mid-to-large multi-disciplinary organizations. Its Session Note AI is full form-filling but auto-fill.
Motivity has the most documented field types in its template builder and is the strongest choice if AI note generation is not a current must-have.
Passage Health publicly markets inline editing during data collection (alongside VGPM). Its AI is summary-only.
Raven Health owns the field-first mobile experience. Its AI is summary-only.
Theralytics has the lowest entry price for a credible all-in-one ABA platform. Its AI is summary-only.

For a head-to-head feature comparison across the broader practice management surface, see our best ABA practice management software guide or our VGPM vs CentralReach breakdown.

Documentation rules and clinical responsibility are governed by the BACB ethics code; audit and EVV requirements vary by state and payer. Confirm both before locking in a vendor.

Frequently Asked Questions