Pulley vs. Carta for Networks With Equity in Every Clinic
For a physical therapy network with equity stakes in many clinics, judge Pulley against Carta on breadth rather than features: how well each represents small minority holdings spread across many separate entities. Giving each clinic director a stake in their own location works as retention, but untangling dozens of small holders at a sale is expensive and slow.
Vendors Covered in this Article
Disclosure: We may earn a commission if you buy through some links on this page. It doesn't change what we recommend.
Why Breadth, Not Complexity, Is the Real Problem
No individual clinic's cap table is complicated. A director with a small minority stake, the parent network holding the rest, is a simple structure to represent in any tool. The difficulty is entirely about scale: representing that same simple structure accurately across thirty or forty clinics, each with a different director holding a different percentage.
A network that has been granting clinic-level equity for years without a consolidated system usually cannot answer a basic question quickly: across the whole network, how much total equity has been granted to directors, and what would it cost to buy all of it back.
That second number matters more than networks tend to realize. A finance team estimating total buyback exposure from memory is often surprised by how much it has actually grown once every clinic's grant is added up in one place rather than considered clinic by clinic.
Where Pulley Fits a Small Network
For a network with a handful of clinics, Pulley can represent each clinic entity's cap table cleanly, and its simpler setup is genuinely easier to manage at that scale than a heavier platform would be.
It does not offer meaningful roll-up reporting across many entities, so a network planning to keep growing this way should treat Pulley as a starting point to outgrow deliberately, not a permanent home.
Revisit the decision at a regular interval, say once a year, rather than waiting for the roll-up problem to become painful before acting on it.
Where Carta Fits a Larger Network
Carta's multi-entity reporting becomes genuinely valuable once a network is running enough clinics that a consolidated view of director equity across all of them is something the finance team actually needs regularly, not just once a year.
This matters most heading into a sale process, where a buyer's diligence team will ask for exactly this consolidated view, and a network that can produce it quickly looks meaningfully more organized than one that needs weeks to assemble it by hand.
A Standard Clinic Director Equity Template
Rather than negotiating clinic director equity terms individually each time a new location opens, build one standard template: percentage range based on clinic size or tenure, vesting schedule, and buyback terms if the director leaves. Apply it consistently going forward, even if past grants vary.
Consistency here does more to control future complexity than any platform choice. A network with thirty clinics on one template is far easier to consolidate than one with thirty clinics each negotiated separately.
Document why any past grant deviates from the new standard, rather than quietly leaving the inconsistency unexplained. A future buyer or lender who notices the variation will ask about it regardless, and having a clear answer ready is better than discovering you no longer remember the reasoning yourself.
Planning the Buyback Before You Need It
Decide now, not during an active sale process, how the network will handle buying back director equity if a clinic underperforms, a director leaves, or the network wants to consolidate ownership before a larger transaction. A pre-agreed formula, tied to a multiple of the clinic's own performance, avoids a separate negotiation with every departing director.
Without this, each buyback becomes its own negotiation, and a network with many small holders can find itself running a dozen separate negotiations at once during exactly the moment it can least afford the distraction.
What a Buyer's Diligence Team Will Actually Ask For
Expect a request for a full list of every clinic entity, its director equity holder, their percentage, vesting status, and the buyback terms that would apply if the network wanted to consolidate ownership before closing. A network that can produce this in a day looks materially more organized than one that needs weeks to pull it together clinic by clinic.
That speed difference is not just about appearances. A buyer often prices in a discount for the uncertainty of what an incomplete cap table picture might still turn up, so having it ready ahead of time is worth real money in that negotiation.
Have these records ready before a sale process begins:
- A full list of every clinic entity with its director equity holder and their percentage.
- Each holder's vesting status, kept current as directors join and leave.
- The buyback terms that would apply if the network wanted to consolidate ownership before closing.
- One standard director template covering the percentage range by clinic size or tenure, the vesting schedule and buyback terms.
- A pre-agreed buyback formula tied to a multiple of the clinic's own performance, so no separate negotiation is needed.
What Good Looks Like
A network that has this right can produce a consolidated summary of director equity across every clinic within a day, with a signed agreement and a pre-agreed buyback formula behind every stake on it.
Building The Capability (5-Stage Skill Ladder)
How to Get Started
Disclosure: We may earn a commission if you buy through some links on this page. It doesn't change what we recommend.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many clinic-level equity holders justify switching from Pulley to Carta?
There is no fixed threshold. The better signal is how often the finance team actually needs a consolidated, cross-clinic view of director equity. If that need comes up only rarely, Pulley's simpler setup may still be enough even at a larger clinic count.
Should clinic director equity be in the individual clinic entity or the parent network?
Most networks grant it at the clinic entity level specifically because it ties the director's upside to their own location's performance. Parent-level equity is more common for senior operators overseeing multiple clinics rather than a single-site director.
What is a fair buyback formula for a departing clinic director's equity?
There is no single standard formula, but it should be tied to a defensible, pre-agreed method, often a multiple of the clinic's trailing profit, set before anyone is actually leaving. Confirm the approach with your accountant so it produces a consistent, defensible number each time.
About the numbers
This guide doesn't quote a sourced benchmark. Figures in it are estimates or general guidance, so check them against your own numbers.
Related Guides
Carta vs Forge When a Non-Compete Travels With the Shares
How to think about Carta and Forge for a clinic director's equity when vesting and transfer are tied to continued employment and a non-compete.
Banking an Outpatient Physical Therapy Network Across Clinics
Insurance reimbursement lags weeks behind treatment, and equipment leases pile up per clinic. Compare Mercury and Relay for a PT network's banking.
Forming an Entity for a Growing Physical Therapy Network
A worked example of forming and expanding a physical therapy practice's entity, including Medicare enrollment at each new clinic location.
Deel vs Remote for Outpatient Physical Therapy Networks
How outpatient physical therapy networks should compare Deel and Remote when hiring scheduling, billing, and utilization review staff abroad.
Diligent vs BoardPro for PT Networks Signing Payer Contracts
A payer amendment got countersigned before it was authorized. Compare Diligent and BoardPro for outpatient physical therapy network boards.
Justworks vs TriNet for Outpatient Physical Therapy Networks
A worked example of an outpatient physical therapy network comparing Justworks and TriNet, covering multi-state PT licensure and productivity-based pay.