Continuous accessibility monitoring helps detect recurring issues, prevent regressions, and support sustainable remediation workflows. Automated tools are valuable, but they do not replace manual testing, assistive technology review, or user testing.
Before exploring specific tools, clarify your goals by asking yourself:
- Scope: Single site or multiple domains?
- Workflow: Do you need CI/CD integration?
- Users: Who needs access to results (developers, product owners, executives)?
- Reporting: Do you need dashboards, exportable reports, or compliance documentation?
- Maturity: Is your process early, developing, or organisationally mature?
What Automation Can and Cannot Do
Automated monitoring tools are useful for flagging certain issues, but they cannot:
- Detect all accessibility barriers
- Evaluate cognitive or usability concerns
- Replace assistive technology testing
- Replace human/manual review
Tools are grouped by purpose, not price or hosting. I've personally used the tool examples below, these are not the only tools out there.
Best for engineering teams and CI/CD workflows.
- axe DevTools / axe-core
Pros: Strong rule coverage, great for CI/CD
Cons: Needs setup - Pa11y
Pros: Open source, flexible scriptable scans
Cons: Minimal reporting interface - QAutoEQual
Pros: Offers multiple solutions to fit different needs (also solutions suitable for enterprise monitoring)
Cons: Less polished UI - Salvia
Pros: Recurring scan support
Cons: Needs setup, less polished UI
Best for governance, dashboards, portfolio monitoring.
- Eficode Accessibility Keeper
Pros: Multi-site scans, dashboards, clear reports
Cons: Commercial product, focus only on accessibility - Siteimprove
Pros: Multi-site scans, dashboards, widely used and supported tool, focuses on more than accessibility
Cons: Commercial product with a higher cost, broad platform, can be overwhelming - Webwarden
Pros: Multi-site scans, dashboards, clear reports, accessibility statements, pricing clearly available, focuses on more than accessibility
Cons: Commercial product
Useful for ad-hoc checks or smaller early-stage needs.
Examples:
- Axe DevTools (free / paid): Browser plugin for quick checks
- Lighthouse (free): Quick DevTools audits
- WAVE (free / paid API): Visual issue highlighting
- Avoid choosing based on price alone: Cheap tools without process integration have limited value.
- Avoid expecting compliance from automation: No tool alone can guarantee legal or full WCAG compliance.
- Avoid tool selection without ownership: Define who reviews, prioritises, and remediates issues first.
- Avoid scanning without remediation plans: High scan frequency without fixing capacity leads to noise.
- Avoid treating monitoring as strategy: Tools are feedback mechanisms, not governance plans.
- Avoid vendor lock-in without evaluation: Assess exportability, integration, and long-term fit.
Choosing by Organisational Maturity
Early stage
- Simple recurring scans
- Manual tools + Pa11y/Lighthouse
Developing stage
- Developer workflows (axe, QAutoEQual)
- Recurring Salvia scans
Mature stage
- Org dashboards
- Portfolio visibility (Eficode, Siteimprove, Webwarden)
- Governance reporting
Summary
Accessibility monitoring tools are valuable for recurring technical checks, visibility, and trend tracking; but only as part of a broader strategy. Choose tools based on workflow needs, scale, and process ownership, not just cost or feature lists.