Objectives <p>While online interventions increase access to support, self-guided online programs have lower engagement and (potentially) efficacy than guided programs. However, the acceptability of guided programs to cancer survivors is less established. This study qualitatively explored whether the addition of guidance via two brief coaching calls to the Healthy Living after Cancer (HLaC) <i>Online</i> program, an online lifestyle intervention, was feasible and more acceptable than the self-guided version.</p> Methods <p>Participants were adult Australian cancer survivors randomized to receive either HLaC <i>Online</i> + coaching (<i>n</i> = 25) or HLaC <i>Online</i> (<i>n</i> = 27) as part of a larger clinical trial. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted (<i>n</i> = 21), and transcripts were analyzed via framework analysis, using deductive analysis of four a priori feasibility domains (adaption, acceptability, demand, practicality) and inductive analysis to generate novel subthemes. Recruitment ceased when content saturation was achieved.</p> Results <p>Feedback suggested guidance was a positive <i>adaption</i>, with benefits including high <i>acceptability</i>, <i>practicality</i> through program understanding, and maintenance of behavior change. Control participants reported high <i>demand</i> for coaching calls and lower acceptability.</p> Conclusions <p>Feedback suggested that Australian cancer survivors found coaching calls acceptable and feasible, more so than the self-guided program. HLaC <i>Online</i> + coaching supported Australian cancer survivors to interact with the program more effectively than without coaching and achieve reported benefits in both physical and psychosocial health, suggesting better survivorship outcomes. Future research should implement the addition of coaching calls at a larger scale, to establish whether calls impact efficacy and engagement.</p>