What is an Accessibility Audit? Types, Costs, and Expectations

When organizations begin taking accessibility seriously, one of the first steps is usually an accessibility audit. But what exactly does that mean? The term "audit" gets used to describe everything from a five-minute automated scan to a month-long expert evaluation with user testing. Understanding what different types of audits involve helps you choose the right approach for your situation and set appropriate expectations.

This guide explains what accessibility audits are, the different forms they take, what they cost, and what you should expect from the process.

What an Accessibility Audit Accomplishes

At its core, an accessibility audit evaluates how well a website, application, or digital product works for people with disabilities. The audit measures against established standards—typically WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines)—and identifies where the product fails to meet those standards.

A good audit produces more than just a list of failures. It provides context about why issues matter, who they affect, and how to fix them. It prioritizes findings so you know what to address first. And it establishes a baseline for measuring improvement over time.

Audits serve several purposes depending on organizational needs. Some organizations audit to understand their current state before beginning remediation. Others audit to verify that remediation efforts succeeded. Some need audit documentation for legal protection or procurement requirements. Understanding your purpose helps determine what type of audit you need.

Types of Accessibility Audits

Automated Audits

Automated audits use software tools to scan websites and identify accessibility issues. These tools check HTML markup, evaluate color contrast, verify the presence of alt text, and test for dozens of other technical requirements.

The strength of automated audits is speed and consistency. A tool can scan hundreds of pages in minutes and will check the same criteria the same way every time. Automated scans are excellent for catching technical errors like missing alt attributes, insufficient contrast ratios, and invalid ARIA markup.

The limitation is that automated tools can only evaluate what's programmatically testable—roughly 30-40% of WCAG success criteria. They can verify that alt text exists but not whether it accurately describes an image. They can check that buttons are keyboard-focusable but not whether focus order makes logical sense. They can identify low contrast but not whether color is the only means of conveying information.

Automated audits work best as a starting point or for ongoing monitoring, not as a complete assessment of accessibility compliance.

Manual Expert Audits

Manual audits involve human evaluators testing websites against accessibility criteria. Experts navigate using only keyboards, test with screen readers, examine content structure, and evaluate the user experience against WCAG requirements.

Manual audits catch issues automated tools miss: confusing navigation patterns, unclear form instructions, logical focus order problems, and meaningful alternative text evaluation. Human judgment determines whether error messages actually help users understand what went wrong, whether heading structure makes content organization clear, and whether interactive components behave as users expect.

The depth of manual audits varies considerably. A basic manual review might take a few hours and focus on the most common issues. A comprehensive manual audit examining every WCAG success criterion across multiple pages and user flows might take weeks.

User Testing

User testing involves people with disabilities actually using the website or application while evaluators observe. Unlike expert audits that evaluate against standards, user testing reveals whether real users can accomplish real tasks.

User testing uncovers problems that even expert auditors might miss. Someone who uses a screen reader daily will navigate differently than an expert simulating screen reader usage. Someone with a cognitive disability will experience confusion in ways that might not be obvious to someone evaluating against WCAG criteria.

User testing is particularly valuable for complex applications where task completion matters more than checkbox compliance. It's less efficient for identifying comprehensive lists of technical issues but provides irreplaceable insight into actual user experience.

Hybrid Approaches

Most thorough accessibility audits combine multiple methods. A typical approach might start with automated scanning to identify obvious technical issues, follow with manual expert testing against WCAG criteria, and include user testing for key workflows.

This combination maximizes coverage while respecting budget constraints. Automated tools catch the low-hanging fruit efficiently, expert review catches what tools miss, and user testing validates that fixes actually work for the people they're meant to help.

What Audits Evaluate

WCAG Conformance Levels

Most audits evaluate against WCAG 2.1 or WCAG 2.2 Level AA. This standard is referenced by most accessibility regulations including ADA, Section 508, and the European Accessibility Act. Level AA includes 50 success criteria covering perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust principles.

Some audits evaluate Level A only (the bare minimum, 30 criteria) or Level AAA (enhanced accessibility, 78 criteria). Level AA represents the widely accepted standard for compliance obligations.

Scope

Audits don't typically examine every page of a website. Most define a representative sample including key page types and user flows. A typical audit scope might include:

• Homepage
• Primary navigation paths
• Key landing pages
• Forms (contact, signup, checkout)
• Search functionality
• Account/login processes
• Representative content pages
• Dynamic components (modals, accordions, carousels)

The sample should represent the full range of templates and functionality on the site. If the homepage and checkout are accessible but product pages aren't, you haven't achieved compliance.

Platforms and Assistive Technologies

Comprehensive audits test across browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge) and assistive technologies (NVDA, JAWS, VoiceOver). Issues that appear in one configuration might not appear in another.

Mobile testing adds another dimension. Responsive designs need evaluation on various screen sizes, and mobile-specific interactions (touch targets, gestures) have their own accessibility considerations.

What to Expect from the Process

Before the Audit

Preparation helps audits run efficiently. You should be ready to provide:

• URLs for all pages to be tested
• Credentials for authenticated areas
• Information about target audience and key user flows
• Technical documentation about the technology stack
• Any known accessibility issues or previous audit results
• Information about third-party components and integrations

Establishing scope upfront prevents disagreements about coverage. Be specific about which pages, features, and platforms you want evaluated.

During the Audit

Auditors will explore your site using various tools and techniques. Expect questions about functionality, intended user flows, and edge cases. If auditors discover something that seems like a bug versus an accessibility issue, they'll likely ask for clarification.

Some auditors provide preliminary findings during the audit, especially for critical issues that should be addressed immediately. Others compile everything into a final report.

The Audit Report

A useful audit report includes:

Executive summary: High-level findings suitable for non-technical stakeholders, overall conformance assessment, and key recommendations.

Detailed findings: Each issue with description, affected WCAG criterion, severity level, affected pages/components, and recommendations for remediation.

Prioritization: Guidance on what to fix first based on user impact, severity, and effort required.

Screenshots and code samples: Visual documentation of issues and, ideally, examples of how to fix them.

Methodology: How the audit was conducted, what was tested, and any limitations.

Reports should be actionable. A finding that says "some images lack alt text" is less useful than one that says "14 product images on category pages lack alt text; provide descriptive text following these guidelines..."

After the Audit

The audit itself doesn't fix anything—it identifies what needs fixing. Plan for remediation work following the audit. Many organizations underestimate the effort required to address findings, especially if they discover significant issues.

Some auditors offer re-testing services to verify fixes. This validation ensures remediation actually addressed the issues rather than creating new problems.

Audit Costs

Accessibility audit pricing varies enormously based on scope, depth, and provider.

Automated-only audits: Free to a few hundred dollars. Tools like axe, WAVE, and Lighthouse are free. Subscription services providing automated scanning across many pages typically run $100-$1,000 monthly.

Basic manual audits: $2,000-$10,000. A focused review of key pages and functionality by an accessibility expert, typically producing a report of findings and recommendations.

Comprehensive expert audits: $10,000-$50,000+. Thorough evaluation covering all WCAG criteria, multiple pages, various assistive technologies, with detailed documentation and remediation guidance.

Audits including user testing: Add $5,000-$15,000+ for user testing with people who have disabilities. Cost varies based on number of participants, disability types included, and task complexity.

Enterprise-scale audits: Large websites with many templates, applications, and platforms can require audits costing $100,000 or more. Government agencies and large corporations often have accessibility audit budgets in this range.

The right investment depends on your risk level, compliance obligations, and remediation capacity. An expensive comprehensive audit is wasted if you can't actually fix what it finds. A cheap automated scan provides false confidence if you assume it represents complete compliance.

Choosing an Auditor

When selecting an accessibility audit provider, consider:

Credentials and experience: Look for auditors with IAAP certification, documented experience with similar organizations, and knowledge of relevant regulations.

Methodology transparency: Providers should explain how they conduct audits, what tools they use, and what's included in their scope.

Report quality: Ask for sample reports. You're buying the deliverable as much as the process.

Remediation support: Some auditors just report findings; others help you fix them. Know what you're getting.

References: Talk to previous clients about their experience.

Be cautious of providers promising comprehensive compliance based on automated scanning alone, or those whose findings seem designed to sell additional services rather than genuinely help you improve.

Taking Action

An accessibility audit is a diagnostic tool—valuable for understanding where you stand but only useful if you act on the findings. Plan your audit as the beginning of an accessibility initiative, not a one-time checkbox exercise.

TestParty provides continuous accessibility monitoring that functions as ongoing automated auditing, catching issues as they're introduced rather than waiting for periodic assessments.

Schedule a TestParty demo and get a 14-day compliance implementation plan.

Related Resources

• Accessibility Audit Guide
• How to Test Website Accessibility
• VPAT Creation Guide
• WCAG 2.2 Level AA Checklist