Accessibility Vendor Evaluation: 20-Point Comparison Framework

Choosing between accessibility vendors without a structured framework leads to decisions based on demos rather than capability. I've watched organizations pick tools that looked impressive in sales presentations, only to discover critical gaps months later. This evaluation framework gives you 20 specific criteria for comparing vendors objectively.

The framework covers four categories: detection capability, remediation features, integration depth, and vendor qualifications. Score each vendor on each criterion, weight by your priorities, and let data guide decisions rather than presentation skills.

Q: How should I evaluate accessibility software vendors?

A: Score vendors across four categories: detection (what they find and how accurately), remediation (whether they fix issues or just report them), integration (how well they fit your workflow), and vendor qualifications (expertise and stability). Weight categories by your priorities—organizations needing fast fixes weight remediation heavily; those with strong dev teams may weight integration higher.

Using This Framework

Rate each criterion 1-5:

• 1: Does not meet requirement
• 2: Partially meets requirement
• 3: Adequately meets requirement
• 4: Exceeds requirement
• 5: Exceptional/best-in-class

Then multiply by category weights based on your priorities. The vendor with the highest weighted score typically deserves deeper evaluation.

Category 1: Detection Capability (25% weight suggested)

Criterion 1: WCAG Coverage Breadth

What to evaluate: Which WCAG 2.2 success criteria does automated scanning address?

How to score:

• 5: Covers 40+ automatable criteria with clear documentation
• 4: Covers 30-40 criteria with documentation
• 3: Covers 20-30 criteria with some documentation
• 2: Limited coverage (<20 criteria) or unclear documentation
• 1: Vague claims without specific criteria listed

Why it matters: According to W3C ACT Rules, roughly 30-40% of WCAG criteria have reliable automated tests. Vendors claiming higher coverage are either using different definitions or including semi-automated checks.

Criterion 2: Detection Accuracy

What to evaluate: False positive and false negative rates in real-world use.

How to score:

• 5: Documented <5% false positive rate, validated externally
• 4: <10% false positive rate with internal validation
• 3: Claims low false positives without specific metrics
• 2: Known false positive issues acknowledged
• 1: High false positive rates or no accuracy data available

Why it matters: High false positive rates waste developer time investigating non-issues. High false negatives mean real issues go undetected.

Criterion 3: Dynamic Content Handling

What to evaluate: Ability to scan JavaScript-rendered content, SPAs, and authenticated pages.

How to score:

• 5: Full JavaScript execution, SPA support, authenticated scanning with SSO
• 4: JavaScript execution with some SPA limitations
• 3: JavaScript execution but authenticated scanning complex
• 2: Limited JavaScript support, no authenticated scanning
• 1: Static HTML only

Why it matters: Modern web applications render much content via JavaScript. Tools that only scan server-rendered HTML miss significant portions of most sites.

Criterion 4: Scanning Performance

What to evaluate: Speed and scalability of scanning operations.

How to score:

• 5: 10,000+ pages in under 1 hour, parallel scanning
• 4: 10,000+ pages in 1-4 hours
• 3: 10,000+ pages in 4-8 hours
• 2: 10,000+ pages takes >8 hours
• 1: Significant limitations on scale or speed

Criterion 5: Manual Testing Support

What to evaluate: Guidance and workflows for testing criteria automation can't address.

How to score:

• 5: Comprehensive manual testing workflows with guided steps
• 4: Manual testing guidance for key criteria
• 3: Basic manual testing checklists
• 2: Acknowledges manual testing needs without support
• 1: No manual testing support or guidance

Category 2: Remediation Capability (25% weight suggested)

Criterion 6: Fix Generation

What to evaluate: Does the platform generate actual code fixes?

How to score:

• 5: Generates implementable code fixes for 70%+ of detected issues
• 4: Generates code fixes for 50-70% of issues
• 3: Generates code suggestions for 30-50% of issues
• 2: Provides fix guidance without code
• 1: Reports issues only without remediation support

Why it matters: This criterion often determines ROI. Platforms that generate fixes (like TestParty) dramatically reduce developer time versus tools that only report.

Criterion 7: Fix Quality

What to evaluate: Accuracy and safety of generated fixes.

How to score:

• 5: High accuracy with validation testing, minimal breaking changes
• 4: Good accuracy with occasional manual review needed
• 3: Reasonable accuracy but regular review required
• 2: Fixes often need modification
• 1: Fix quality unreliable

Criterion 8: Prioritization Intelligence

What to evaluate: Does the platform help prioritize which issues to fix first?

How to score:

• 5: Smart prioritization by impact, user path, legal risk, and effort
• 4: Multiple prioritization factors with customization
• 3: Basic severity-based prioritization
• 2: Simple WCAG level prioritization only
• 1: No prioritization support

Criterion 9: Remediation Tracking

What to evaluate: Can you track fix progress and verify remediation?

How to score:

• 5: Full workflow tracking, verification scanning, progress dashboards
• 4: Issue tracking with verification capability
• 3: Basic issue tracking
• 2: Manual tracking required
• 1: No tracking support

Criterion 10: Expert Access

What to evaluate: Access to human accessibility experts for complex issues.

How to score:

• 5: Included expert access with IAAP-certified professionals
• 4: Expert access available at reasonable additional cost
• 3: Expert access available at significant additional cost
• 2: Limited expert availability
• 1: No expert access available

Category 3: Integration Depth (25% weight suggested)

Criterion 11: CI/CD Integration

What to evaluate: Native integration with development pipelines.

How to score:

• 5: Native integration with all major CI/CD platforms, blocking capability
• 4: Integration with major platforms, some configuration required
• 3: API-based integration possible with development effort
• 2: Limited integration options
• 1: No CI/CD integration

Why it matters: GitHub's 2024 State of the Octoverse shows CI/CD adoption continues growing. Accessibility testing must fit these workflows.

Criterion 12: CMS/Platform Support

What to evaluate: Native support for your content management systems and platforms.

How to score:

• 5: Native integration with your specific platforms (WordPress, Shopify, etc.)
• 4: Good integration with some configuration
• 3: Works with platforms but requires workarounds
• 2: Limited platform support
• 1: No platform integration

Criterion 13: Issue Tracking Integration

What to evaluate: Integration with Jira, GitHub Issues, Azure DevOps, etc.

How to score:

• 5: Bidirectional sync with major issue trackers
• 4: One-way creation with major trackers
• 3: Export capability for manual import
• 2: Limited integration options
• 1: No issue tracking integration

Criterion 14: API Availability

What to evaluate: Programmatic access for custom integrations.

How to score:

• 5: Comprehensive REST API with full documentation
• 4: API covering core functions
• 3: Limited API availability
• 2: Basic API with restrictions
• 1: No API access

Criterion 15: Developer Experience

What to evaluate: How easy is the tool for developers to actually use?

How to score:

• 5: Intuitive interface, clear documentation, IDE integration
• 4: Good interface with some learning curve
• 3: Functional but requires training
• 2: Steep learning curve
• 1: Poor developer experience

Category 4: Vendor Qualifications (25% weight suggested)

Criterion 16: Team Expertise

What to evaluate: Accessibility credentials of the vendor's team.

How to score:

• 5: Multiple IAAP-certified staff (CPACC, WAS, CPWA) across roles
• 4: Some certified staff in key positions
• 3: Claims accessibility expertise without certifications
• 2: Limited demonstrated expertise
• 1: No apparent accessibility expertise

Criterion 17: Security Compliance

What to evaluate: Security certifications and practices.

How to score:

• 5: SOC 2 Type II + additional certifications (ISO 27001)
• 4: SOC 2 Type II certified
• 3: SOC 2 Type I or in progress
• 2: Basic security practices without certification
• 1: No security compliance demonstrated

Criterion 18: Customer Success

What to evaluate: Support quality and customer outcomes.

How to score:

• 5: Strong references, case studies, documented success metrics
• 4: Good references with some documented outcomes
• 3: References available, limited documentation
• 2: Few references or reluctance to share
• 1: No verifiable customer success

Criterion 19: Financial Stability

What to evaluate: Vendor viability for long-term partnership.

How to score:

• 5: Established revenue, strong backing, clear business model
• 4: Good indicators of stability
• 3: Adequate stability indicators
• 2: Some concerns about stability
• 1: Significant stability concerns

Criterion 20: Roadmap Alignment

What to evaluate: Product direction matches your future needs.

How to score:

• 5: Clear roadmap aligned with accessibility standards evolution
• 4: Roadmap addresses most anticipated needs
• 3: Basic roadmap communication
• 2: Limited roadmap visibility
• 1: No roadmap transparency

Scoring Template

Here's a template for comparing vendors:

| Criterion              | Weight | Vendor A | Vendor B | Vendor C |
|------------------------|--------|----------|----------|----------|
| **Detection (25%)**    |        |          |          |          |
| WCAG Coverage          | 5%     |          |          |          |
| Detection Accuracy     | 7%     |          |          |          |
| Dynamic Content        | 5%     |          |          |          |
| Scanning Performance   | 4%     |          |          |          |
| Manual Testing Support | 4%     |          |          |          |
| **Remediation (25%)**  |        |          |          |          |
| Fix Generation         | 10%    |          |          |          |
| Fix Quality            | 5%     |          |          |          |
| Prioritization         | 4%     |          |          |          |
| Remediation Tracking   | 3%     |          |          |          |
| Expert Access          | 3%     |          |          |          |
| **Integration (25%)**  |        |          |          |          |
| CI/CD Integration      | 8%     |          |          |          |
| CMS/Platform Support   | 6%     |          |          |          |
| Issue Tracking         | 4%     |          |          |          |
| API Availability       | 4%     |          |          |          |
| Developer Experience   | 3%     |          |          |          |
| **Vendor (25%)**       |        |          |          |          |
| Team Expertise         | 6%     |          |          |          |
| Security Compliance    | 7%     |          |          |          |
| Customer Success       | 5%     |          |          |          |
| Financial Stability    | 4%     |          |          |          |
| Roadmap Alignment      | 3%     |          |          |          |
| **WEIGHTED TOTAL**     | 100%   |          |          |          |

Adjusting Weights for Your Situation

Default weights assume balanced priorities. Adjust based on your context:

If you're under legal pressure: Increase remediation weight (especially fix generation and expert access). Speed of achieving compliance matters most.

If you have strong development capacity: Decrease remediation weight, increase integration weight. Your team can fix issues if tools integrate well.

If you're risk-averse enterprise: Increase vendor qualifications weight. Stability and security compliance matter more than cutting-edge features.

If you're a SaaS product: Increase CI/CD integration weight significantly. Continuous deployment requires continuous accessibility testing.

Common Evaluation Mistakes

Overweighting demos: Demos show best-case scenarios. Require proof-of-concept on your actual site.

Ignoring false positives: Tools with high false positive rates create developer fatigue and erode trust.

Undervaluing remediation: The gap between "detecting issues" and "fixing issues" is where most accessibility programs stall.

Not checking references: Call references. Ask specifically about challenges they've encountered.

Choosing on price alone: The cheapest tool that doesn't achieve compliance is the most expensive choice.

How TestParty Scores

When evaluated against this framework, TestParty's strengths include:

• Fix generation (Criterion 6): AI-powered code fix generation for the majority of detected issues
• CI/CD integration (Criterion 11): Bouncer integrates directly into deployment pipelines
• Team expertise (Criterion 16): CPACC-certified accessibility professionals
• CMS support (Criterion 12): Native Shopify integration plus broad web platform support

We're transparent about what we do well and where other solutions might fit better for specific use cases.

FAQ Section

Q: Should we weight all categories equally?

A: Not necessarily. Weight based on your organization's specific needs. Organizations with strong development teams might weight integration higher. Those needing fast compliance might weight remediation higher.

Q: How do we get accurate vendor responses for scoring?

A: Request specific evidence, not claims. Ask for documentation of WCAG coverage, customer references you can call, and proof-of-concept on your site. Vague responses should score lower.

Q: Should we include overlay vendors in evaluation?

A: No. Overlay widgets don't achieve WCAG compliance and have been rejected in legal proceedings. Including them wastes evaluation resources on solutions that don't solve the problem.

Q: How long should vendor evaluation take?

A: Plan 6-8 weeks for thorough evaluation: 2 weeks for initial screening, 2-3 weeks for detailed evaluation and POCs, 2-3 weeks for final selection and negotiation.

Q: What if vendors score similarly?

A: Look at scores in your highest-priority criteria. If still close, expand POC testing or request additional references in your industry.

Making the Final Decision

Framework scores inform but don't make decisions. Consider:

• How vendors handled the evaluation process (responsiveness, transparency)
• Cultural fit with your organization
• Contract flexibility and commercial terms
• Gut feeling after demos and reference calls

The highest-scoring vendor usually deserves the business, but close scores warrant deeper investigation.

Ready to evaluate TestParty against your requirements? Schedule a demo to see how our platform scores on the criteria that matter most to you.

Related Articles:

• Enterprise Accessibility Software: RFP Requirements Checklist
• Accessibility Agencies: Full-Service Compliance Partners
• Accessibility as a Service: The Future of WCAG Compliance

We believe in transparency about our editorial process: AI assisted with this article's creation, and our team ensured it meets our standards. TestParty specializes in e-commerce accessibility solutions, but legal and compliance questions should always go to appropriate experts.