TMS vs Spravato vs IV Ketamine: Why Your Clinic Website Should Help Patients Choose (Not Just Inform Them)
By Rhys Mcculloch • May 20, 2026
For a clinic offering more than one interventional psychiatry treatment, the patient on your website isn't asking "should I try TMS?" - they're asking "which of these is right for me?"
That second question is harder. It's also the one most clinic websites quietly fail to answer.
This post is about the cross-treatment decision logic patients are actually running through when they land on your site — and what a website built for that decision looks like in practice.
What are patients comparing when they land on your site
A patient researching interventional psychiatry rarely arrives knowing which treatment they want. They arrive somewhere along this spectrum:
- They've tried two or three medications, none of which have worked well, and a friend or their psychiatrist mentioned "you should look into TMS or Spravato"
- They've read about ketamine therapy somewhere and want to know if it's the same as Spravato (it's not, quite)
- They've heard about accelerated TMS or SAINT and want to know if that's faster than the standard protocol
- They've seen Spravato advertised, called their insurance, and are now confused about whether they qualify
The thing every one of those patients has in common: they're comparing treatments before they're comparing clinics.
A typical example: a clinic offers TMS, Spravato, and IV ketamine. The website has three service pages, three different contact forms, and a single
"Book a Consultation" CTA across all of them. A patient with treatment-resistant depression lands on the homepage, doesn't know which of the three applies to her, opens all three service pages in separate tabs, and leaves twenty minutes later more confused than when she arrived. None of the three pages helped her choose. That's the gap.
If your website only presents TMS, Spravato, and IV ketamine as three separate service pages with their own CTAs, the patient still has to do the comparison work themselves. Most won't. They'll leave, go to Reddit or WebMD, and come back to a different clinic that helped them choose.
The three decisions patients are actually making
Each cross-treatment comparison comes down to a specific set of questions. Clinic websites that convert well address each one directly.
TMS vs antidepressant medication
Most patients arriving at an interventional psychiatry clinic have been on medication for a while and aren't getting the response they hoped for. They want to know:
- Is TMS a replacement for my medication, or do I stay on it?
- How is the effect different from a new pill?
- Will the relief last after the six-week course ends?
- What does the day-to-day actually look like compared to taking a pill?
Most TMS service pages explain the neurological mechanism. Almost none explain what the patient should expect compared to their current medication. That gap is where the inquiry is lost.
Spravato vs IV ketamine
This is the comparison most likely to be searched and least likely to be answered well on clinic websites. The two treatments are pharmacologically related but operationally very different:
- Spravato is FDA-cleared for treatment-resistant depression, administered in-clinic as a nasal spray, observed for two hours after each dose, and covered by most commercial and government insurance plans with prior authorization.
- IV ketamine is administered as an infusion, typically over 40 minutes, and is almost always cash-pay because most insurance plans don't cover off-label ketamine infusions for depression.
A patient comparing the two is weighing insurance coverage against scheduling flexibility, FDA-cleared protocol against established off-label evidence, and the experience of a nasal spray versus an IV infusion.
Most clinic websites have a Spravato page and a separate IV ketamine page, but no content that helps the patient choose between them. That's the gap.
TMS vs Spravato (or ketamine)
This is the comparison patients with depression face when their clinical team mentions both might be appropriate. The decision usually comes down to:
- Time commitment. TMS is roughly 36 sessions over six to nine weeks. Spravato requires twice-weekly sessions for the first month, then weekly, then biweekly. IV ketamine is typically a six-session series over two to three weeks.
- Insurance reality. TMS and Spravato have established coverage pathways. IV ketamine usually doesn't.
- Treatment experience. TMS is awake and non-invasive. Spravato and ketamine involve a dissociative experience the patient is observed through.
The patient running this comparison isn't always doing it explicitly. They're often just looking for the treatment that feels least disruptive, most likely to work, and most affordable. Your website should help them see how each option ranks against those criteria for their specific situation.
What most clinic websites are doing wrong
Three patterns show up repeatedly across interventional psychiatry sites:
One CTA across all treatments. Every service page ends with "Book a Consultation," regardless of which treatment the patient is considering. That makes sense from a clinic workflow perspective but doesn't help the patient who isn't ready to book any of them yet.
No comparison content. Treatments live on separate pages, with no bridge between them. The patient who lands on the TMS page wanting to compare it to Spravato has to navigate away and start over.
No cross-treatment qualification. Every service page's contact form asks the same generic questions. There's no logic that routes a patient considering Spravato into a different conversation than a patient considering IV ketamine, even though the candidacy criteria, insurance situation, and clinical questions are completely different.
For a broader look at why most TMS clinic websites underperform regardless of treatment mix, we covered that separately in Why Most TMS Clinic Websites Fail to Convert. The cross-treatment decision problem in this post sits on top of those broader issues - and gets worse for clinics offering more than one treatment.
What a website built for the decision looks like
Three things change when a clinic website is built around the cross-treatment decision rather than around isolated service pages.
A qualification path that handles all treatments at once. Instead of three separate contact forms, a single qualification flow asks about the condition, prior treatment history, age, insurance, and treatment interest - then routes the patient toward the treatment they're most likely to be a fit for. The patient gets an answer. The clinic gets a qualified inquiry with clinical context.
Comparison content is built into the service pages, not hidden in a blog. Each service page acknowledges the alternatives. The TMS page explains how it differs from Spravato. The Spravato page explains how it differs from IV ketamine. Patients don't have to leave the site to find the comparison.
Different nurture sequences for different treatment interests. A patient considering Spravato has different objections than a patient considering IV ketamine. Their follow-up emails, content, and reminders should reflect that - not be the same generic newsletter.
This is the structural difference between a clinic website that converts the patients ready to book today and one that builds a pipeline of patients moving toward the right treatment for them.
Bottom line: A clinic offering TMS, Spravato, and IV ketamine isn't competing with the clinic that offers one treatment - it's competing for the patient's attention while also asking that patient to make a treatment selection most don't feel qualified to make. The website's job isn't just to inform. It's to help the patient choose.
Should we have separate pages for TMS, Spravato, and IV ketamine?
Yes. They're searched for separately, qualified differently, and need different content. But each page should reference the others — patients comparing treatments shouldn't have to leave your site to do it.
What about patients who don't know which treatment they want?
That's most of them, and that's exactly the gap. A qualification flow that asks about the patient's situation and recommends a starting treatment converts much better than asking them to choose from a service menu they don't have the context to navigate.
Is comparison content worth the effort to build?
It's some of the highest-converting content a clinic site can produce. "TMS vs Spravato," "Spravato vs ketamine," and "TMS for treatment-resistant depression" are high-intent searches with relatively low competition compared to "TMS therapy" alone.
Won't a qualification survey discourage patients from inquiring?
The opposite tends to be true. Patients who aren't ready to book a consultation aren't going to fill out a contact form either — they're going to leave. A 60-90 second qualification path gives them a low-commitment way to engage.
How does this fit with our existing intake process?
The qualification and nurture work sits upstream of intake. Once a patient is qualified and booked, they hand off to whatever intake process the clinic already runs. Lead generation and intake stay separate workflows.
The next step
If your clinic offers TMS, Spravato, IV ketamine, or more than one of these, the patient on your website is making a cross-treatment decision your site probably isn't built to support.
BuildForPatients is built specifically for interventional psychiatry clinics - qualification funnels that handle multiple treatments, comparison content woven into the site, and nurture sequences segmented by treatment interest.
Latest Posts











