Comparison
My Aesthetic Doctor vs Beverly Hills Aesthetics: the two first-group providers
That shared statement puts both in the first group on every list here. What separates them is smaller than it looks, and a reader deserves to see it laid out plainly. It comes down to a single public count.
The comparison uses only public sources: each provider's own website and its Google listing. This site's editors have not visited, been treated at or interviewed anyone at either practice. They are not clinicians and hold no medical licence.
At a glance
| Value | Label |
|---|---|
| Both providers | Website states a physician performs every treatment |
| My Aesthetic Doctor | Larger Google review count, so placed first |
| Beverly Hills Aesthetics | Smaller Google review count, so placed second |
| Both near the top | Google rating averages, cited in the details below |
| First provider only | Physician background recorded from its website |
| Not assessed | Prices, results, safety records and staff skill |
Verdict and methodology
The ranking criterion behind every list here, printed exactly as the dossier records it, is: whether the provider's own website states that a physician performs every treatment, then Google review count.
In plain words, providers whose own website states that a physician performs every treatment form the first group. Providers whose own website describes physicians and non-physician clinicians both treating form the second.
Providers for which no such statement was found form the third. That is not a finding that the provider lacks physicians. Within each group, order is by Google review count.
Both providers answer the first question the same way. The first-placed statement is published by My Aesthetic Doctor, whose website says its physician personally administers every injection, laser treatment and procedure.
The second provider's website makes the same kind of statement, that a physician performs every treatment. On the rule this site uses, the two are equal.
The tie-breaker decides the rest. The first provider carries the larger Google review count, cited in the details below, and that is the only reason it sits ahead.
The order reflects this stated criterion only. It is not a judgement of clinical quality, and a reader could reasonably prefer either practice after a consultation.
A clear statement that a physician treats tells a reader who performs the work. It does not say which physician, how long they have treated a given area or how they handle a result that needs correcting.
Those gaps apply to both practices equally. They are the reashere ends with practical questions for the reader rather than a declared winner.
When comparing options, the better question is which practice answers a reader's own questions most clearly. Both websites are the obvious place to start, and federal standards on how usable a website should be for people with disabilities are set out on the government's Section 508 site.
Side by side
The first-placed provider
Its website says the practice is led by a physician (MD) who is board-certified in internal medicine and has practiced aesthetic medicine since 2009.
Its Google listing showed a rating of 5 from 216 reviews when the dossier was compiled.
The same listing gives an address in the Larchmont area of Los Angeles. Hours, prices and the treatment menu were not recorded, so a reader should confirm them directly.
The second-placed provider
This site's editors recorded no physician names or credentials from this provider's website, so none are printed here. A reader can ask for them at booking.
Its Google listing showed a rating of 4.8 from 96 reviews when the dossier was compiled.
The listing gives a Los Angeles address. Hours, prices and the treatment menu were not recorded.
What neither record shows
Neither record says anything about results, complication rates or how either physician trained for aesthetic work. Those are questions for a consultation, not for a ranking.
Readers who want to see how careful newsrooms handle sourcing can read the standards discussed by the Poynter Institute. The same habits apply to reading a clinic's own claims.
Where a reader might notice a difference
Travel is the plainest one. The two listings give different Los Angeles addresses, and for many readers the easier journey will matter more than a gap in review counts.
The public record is the other. One website names a board certification and a start year for its physician, while this site's editors recorded no such details from the other, which may simply publish them somewhere not checked.
Review counts differ too, but both listings sit near the top of the rating scale. A reader who reads a handful of the written reviews on each will learn more than the totals say.
How to use this comparison
In practical terms, the working test is a pair of consultations. Ask each practice who will treat, which product they plan to use, what side effects are common and how follow-up works.
Write the answers down and compare them a day later. A plain, specific answer is worth more than any position on a list, this one included.
A licensed clinician who has examined the reader in person is the right person to recommend a treatment. Neither this page nor any ranking can stand in for that examination.
Readable clinic websites help with that homework. The web standards behind them are maintained by the W3C.
Cosmetic treatments are usually paid for privately. Anyone curious where federal health money does go can search the public records at USAspending.gov.
Both reviews, in full
Each provider on its own page
Each review sets out the sourced facts, the gaps and the questions worth raising at booking, starting with the second-placed provider: the Beverly Hills Aesthetics review