Accessible vs AccessibilityChecker.org
Both test websites against WCAG 2.2. They put their effort in different places — and for some teams, AccessibilityChecker.org is the better fit.
Last reviewed . Every statement about AccessibilityChecker.org comes from its own website on that date, linked under Sources. If something has changed, tell us and we will correct it.
The short version
AccessibilityChecker.org is strongest where people do the work. Alongside weekly scans of up to 500 URLs per domain, it sells manual audits, testing by people who use screen readers and assistive technology, VPAT and document remediation, and managed remediation projects, each quoted for the engagement. Accessible is strongest where the work has to repeat. It scans every page with no URL cap, runs a simulated screen-reader user through your key journeys on every release and reports the step that breaks, and monitors the barriers real visitors hit. It does not offer human audits or human user testing.
Side by side
| Accessible | AccessibilityChecker.org | |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing | Per domain. Paid plans from $99 a month; Enterprise is quoted. Journey runs draw on monthly credits. | Per domain. Lite $89, Starter $149 and Growth $299 a month billed monthly ($69, $119 and $249 billed annually); Tailored quote for multiple domains or 2,000+ pages. |
| Free option | Monitor: real user monitoring on one domain, no card, no expiry. It does not scan or run journeys. | A free compliance checker, and a 7-day free trial with access to most platform features. |
| Automated scanning | Every URL on the domain, no page limit on paid plans. axe-core in a real Chromium browser against WCAG 2.0, 2.1 and 2.2, Level A, AA or AAA. | Up to 25, 100 or 500 URLs per domain by plan; unlimited on-demand rescans. |
| Scan scheduling | Every paid plan schedules scans weekly. Any single page on demand on every paid plan; the whole domain on demand on Professional and Enterprise, and on every deploy via webhook on Professional and Enterprise. | Rescans the entire domain every seven days, with alerts when new issues are detected. |
| Standards named | WCAG 2.0, 2.1 and 2.2. Findings are not mapped to Section 508 or EN 301 549. | WCAG 2.2, ADA, Section 508, EAA, AODA and other regulations are named on their site. |
| Automated screen-reader journey testing | Yes. A simulated screen-reader user attempts multi-step tasks — including signing in with a test account — and reports the step that breaks. | Not stated on their site. |
| Human testing and expert audits | Not offered. Journeys are simulated, so judgments that need an experienced assistive-technology user still need one. | Yes. Manual audits, user testing by people using screen readers and assistive technology, and managed remediation — quoted per engagement. |
| Real user monitoring | Yes, free on every plan: axe-core and focus checks in sampled real sessions, ranked by share of sessions affected. | Not stated on their site. Their "continuous monitoring" is described as weekly rescans with alerts. |
| Fix guidance | The markup change for each issue, in React, Vue, Angular or plain HTML. | Issues explained in plain language, mapped to WCAG, with AI-assisted fixes for supported issues. |
| Reports and documentation | Draft VPAT/ACR, activity report, CSV export and a public posture page. | VPAT/ACR as an add-on or service, auto-updating accessibility statements, an audit trail from weekly rescans, a compliance certificate, and white-labeled reports for agencies. |
| Integrations | A deploy webhook for CI on Professional and Enterprise. | APIs, SDKs and CI/CD support. |
When to choose AccessibilityChecker.org instead
- You need people, not just tools. If an auditor or a lawyer has asked for a human-led audit, or testing by people who use assistive technology every day, AccessibilityChecker.org sells that and Accessible does not.
- You want the fixing done for you. Their managed remediation includes code remediation and a re-audit. Accessible tells you what to change; your team makes the change.
- Documents and media are in scope. PDF, video captioning and audio description remediation are services they list. Accessible tests web pages and flows only.
- Your site is small and your budget is fixed. Their Lite plan covers up to 25 URLs for less than Accessible's entry plan.
When Accessible is the better fit
- Your risk lives in flows, not pages. Checkout, sign-up and search break in ways a page scan cannot see; a journey run finds the step, every release, without booking an engagement.
- Your site is larger than a URL cap. Scanning is unmetered on every paid plan.
- You want to know what real visitors hit. Real user monitoring ranks barriers by how many sessions met them, and is free on every plan.
Sources
- AccessibilityChecker.org homepage (opens in a new tab). AccessibilityChecker.org, Accessed September 14, 2026.
- Pricing (opens in a new tab). AccessibilityChecker.org, Accessed September 14, 2026.
- Platform (opens in a new tab). AccessibilityChecker.org, Accessed September 14, 2026.
- Services (opens in a new tab). AccessibilityChecker.org, Accessed September 14, 2026.
Frequently asked questions
What is the main difference between Accessible and AccessibilityChecker.org?
AccessibilityChecker.org pairs weekly automated scanning with human services — manual audits, user testing by people using assistive technology, and remediation work — quoted per engagement. Accessible automates the parts that can repeat every release: scanning every page, running a simulated screen-reader user through your key journeys, and monitoring the barriers real visitors hit.
Is Accessible an alternative to AccessibilityChecker.org's user testing?
Partly. A journey run repeats the same task on every release and reports the exact step a screen-reader user could not get past, which a one-off engagement cannot do continuously. It does not replace an experienced assistive-technology user judging whether content makes sense or a flow is reasonable, and teams with high-stakes launches often use both.
Which one has page limits?
AccessibilityChecker.org's published plans scan up to 25, 100 or 500 URLs per domain, with a tailored quote above that. Accessible's paid plans have no cap on URLs per domain; only journey runs are metered, in credits.
Does AccessibilityChecker.org offer real user monitoring?
Their site describes continuous monitoring as weekly rescans with alerts when new issues appear. It does not describe running checks inside real visitors’ sessions. Check with them directly for anything their site does not state.
See the step your site breaks on.
Monitoring is free, scanning is unmetered on every paid plan, and your first plan opens with a trial balance for journeys.