Accessible vs Kensa
Both scan websites against WCAG 2.2 with axe. They are built for different jobs — and if your site is all public pages, Kensa may be all you need.
Last reviewed . Every statement about Kensa 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
Kensa is strongest as low-cost scanning. It crawls your public pages on a daily, weekly or monthly schedule, scores each one, shows violations on screenshots, and suggests AI-written fixes, from a few dollars a month. Accessible is strongest where scanning stops. Kensa's own FAQ says flows behind a login, like cart and checkout, are out of its scope and need a keyboard and a screen reader — which is what journey testing automates, alongside unmetered scanning and real user monitoring.
Side by side
| Accessible | Kensa | |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing | Per domain. Paid plans from $99 a month; Enterprise is quoted. Journey runs draw on monthly credits. | Monthly plans by pages scanned: Entrepreneur $9.99 (100 pages), Bronze $19.99 (500), Silver $29.99 (1,000), Gold $59.99 (2,500), Platinum $99.99 (5,000); custom above 5,000 pages. Their pricing table lists unlimited domains. |
| Free option | Monitor: real user monitoring on one domain, no card, no expiry. It does not scan or run journeys. | Scan up to 10 pages and get up to 5 AI fix recommendations, with no credit card. |
| 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. | Crawls the domain and runs an axe accessibility audit on every page, within the plan’s monthly page allowance. Publicly accessible pages only. |
| 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. | Daily, weekly or monthly, in your timezone. |
| Standards named | WCAG 2.0, 2.1 and 2.2. Findings are not mapped to Section 508 or EN 301 549. | WCAG 2.2 AA. |
| 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. Their FAQ says anything behind a login, including cart and checkout, is out of scope and needs manual testing with a keyboard and a screen reader. |
| Human testing and expert audits | Not offered. Journeys are simulated, so judgments that need an experienced assistive-technology user still need one. | Not stated on their site. |
| 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. |
| Fix guidance | The markup change for each issue, in React, Vue, Angular or plain HTML. | AI fix recommendations with before-and-after code, drawn from monthly AI fix credits. |
| Reports and documentation | Draft VPAT/ACR, activity report, CSV export and a public posture page. | Violations overlaid on page screenshots, a 0–100 score per page, an email after every scan, and a markdown export for AI coding agents (beta, listed on Platinum). |
| Integrations | A deploy webhook for CI on Professional and Enterprise. | Not stated on their site. |
When to choose Kensa instead
- Your site is public pages only. A marketing site, a blog or a brochure site with no sign-in or checkout gets most of its value from a scanner.
- Budget decides. Kensa's plans start well below Accessible's, and a small team starting from nothing can fix a lot with a scanner first.
- You want violations shown on screenshots. Kensa overlays each violation on a screenshot of the page. Accessible does not produce page screenshots.
- You run many small sites. Kensa's pricing table lists unlimited domains; Accessible is priced per domain.
- An AI coding agent does your fixes. Their markdown export (in beta) is built to be read by one.
When Accessible is the better fit
- Your revenue sits behind a login or a cart. Journeys walk through sign-in, search and checkout the way a screen-reader user would, and report the step that stops them.
- You need to know what real visitors hit. Monitoring ranks barriers by the share of real sessions affected, and is free on every plan.
- You need a record, not just a score. Scan history, an activity report, a draft VPAT/ACR and a public posture page.
Sources
- Kensa homepage — features, pricing and FAQ (opens in a new tab). Kensa, Accessed September 14, 2026.
Frequently asked questions
What is the main difference between Accessible and Kensa?
Kensa is an affordable, straightforward scanner for public pages, with AI fix suggestions and screenshots that show where each violation is. Accessible scans every page too, and adds a simulated screen-reader user that attempts your key journeys — including flows behind a login — plus monitoring of the barriers real visitors hit.
Can Kensa test checkout or pages behind a login?
Kensa's own FAQ says it scans publicly accessible pages, and that anything behind a login — including cart and checkout — is out of scope and needs manual testing with a keyboard and a screen reader. Accessible's journeys can sign in with a test account and walk through those flows step by step.
Why does Accessible cost more than Kensa?
Because it does different work. Scanning is unmetered on every paid plan; the cost is in running a screen-reader journey through multi-step tasks on every release and monitoring real sessions. If public-page scanning is all you need, a lower-cost scanner is a reasonable choice.
Do both tools use axe-core?
Kensa says it runs an axe accessibility audit on every page it crawls. Accessible's scanner runs axe-core in a real Chromium browser, and its monitoring runs axe-core in visitors' own browsers.
Test the flows a scanner can't reach.
Monitoring is free, scanning is unmetered on every paid plan, and your first plan opens with a trial balance for journeys.