Why A11yWatch VS X

Web accessibility tool comparison

A detailed list of comparing tools and services for web accessibility.

Accessibility Features

Live web accessibility testing
WCAG A-AAA audits
Section508 audits
CI pipelines
Command Line Interface
Cross site testing
Custom actions to run on pages
Custom request headers configuration
Dynamic url handling
Dynamic subdomains testing
Dynamic TLDs testing
Concurrent website testing
Live visual website testing
Handle large workloads and websites
Alt tag recommendations
Web accessibility code remediations directly
Lighthouse reports across pages

Accessibility Performance

All benches are done on 8gb linux Github Action containers

Performance and CostsA11yWatchWaveDeque
Average pages tested per 10$ spent8,000-15,000 daily10010-75?
https://www.coinbase.com - 5,900 pages2 mins48 hours+60 hours+
https://www.hbo.com - 7,500 pages3 mins55 hours+72 hours+
https://a11ywatch.com - 28 pages0.1s1 min2 mins

Reasons why A11yWatch is faster

Some of the reasons A11yWatch and Wave run faster than Deque is due to the protocol of choice to control the browser. A11yWatch and Wave use the devtools protocol while Deque uses WebDriver. Devtools protocol allows you to manipulate the entire control beyond the UI layer to enhance the way a it would normally load a web app by doing things like intercepting network request, manipulating elements, and more. A11yWatch goes to the next level with optimisations for speed by leveraging multiple technologies like Rust, protocols like gRPC and efficient algorithms. We also use a custom runner that is over 10,000 times faster than any open source headless runner.

Accessibility Coverage

WCAG50%-63%40%-57% uses Axe or HTML_CodeSniffer57% Axe

Pick the best Wave alternative

Start A11yWatch now to get fast and affordable inclusion monitoring