12 Website Accessibility Testing Tools for Developers and Designers
Scanners, browser extensions, CI tools, contrast checkers and screen readers for accessibility testing: what each catches and what still needs a person.
Which tools should you use to test accessibility?
Use an automated scanner during development (axe DevTools, WAVE or Lighthouse), a guided checker for structured reviews (Accessibility Insights for Web), automated checks in your CI pipeline (axe-core with your test framework, or Pa11y CI), a contrast checker for design (Colour Contrast Analyser), and real screen readers (NVDA, VoiceOver, TalkBack) plus platform tools for mobile apps. Then test manually with a keyboard and, where you can, with disabled users. Tools find a subset of issues; they cannot certify a site as accessible.
This list is for developers and designers building testing into their normal work. The usual target is WCAG 2.2 level AA; WCAG 2.2 became a W3C Recommendation in October 2023. Tool facts were checked on the tools' own pages on 28 October 2026. For the overall method (scoping, manual testing and reporting), see our website accessibility guide and the accessibility testing process guide.
Automated scanners in the browser
1. axe DevTools (browser extension) and axe-core. Deque's axe-core is an open-source rules engine (Mozilla Public License 2.0) with rules for WCAG 2.0, 2.1 and 2.2 at levels A, AA and AAA, plus best practices. Its stated aim is no false positives, so it reports issues it is confident about rather than everything that might be wrong. The free axe DevTools extension runs it in the browser's developer tools; paid versions add guided tests. Good for: developers checking a page while building it.
2. WAVE. WebAIM's evaluation tool shows icons directly on the page where errors, alerts and structural elements are, which makes it easy to see where a problem is. Available as browser extensions and an online checker. Good for: designers and content editors who want to see issues in context.
3. Lighthouse. Built into Chrome's developer tools, Lighthouse includes an accessibility audit that runs a subset of axe-core rules and gives a score. Good for: a quick check alongside performance. Watch for: a score of 100 only means the automated checks passed; it says nothing about the many criteria that need manual testing.
Guided and structured testing
4. Accessibility Insights for Web. Microsoft's free browser extension for Chrome and Edge. FastPass combines automated checks with a guided tab-stop test of keyboard navigation; Assessment walks you through a fuller review against WCAG 2.1 AA, with automated checks and assisted manual tests. Good for: teams that want a repeatable manual process without an expensive tool.
5. ARC Toolkit. A free Chrome extension from TPGi that lists issues and lets you inspect headings, landmarks, links, form labels and ARIA. Good for: developers debugging structure and ARIA in detail.
Testing in code and CI
6. axe-core in your test framework. axe-core has integrations for end-to-end and unit testing tools, such as the official package for Playwright, so automated accessibility checks run with your other tests. Good for: catching regressions before they reach production. Add checks for key pages and components, not just the home page.
7. Pa11y and Pa11y CI. Free, open-source command-line tools. Pa11y tests a page; Pa11y CI runs through a list of URLs, which suits build pipelines; Pa11y Dashboard tracks results over time for non-developers. Good for: teams that want simple, scriptable checks across many pages. See automated regression testing.
Design and contrast
8. Colour Contrast Analyser. A free desktop app from TPGi with an eyedropper to check contrast between any two colours on screen against WCAG thresholds, including in images, design files and prototypes. Good for: designers checking colours before handoff. Many design tools also have contrast plugins.
Screen readers
9. NVDA (Windows). A free, open-source screen reader widely used by blind people. Pair it with Firefox or Chrome.
10. VoiceOver (macOS and iOS). Built into Apple devices. Test websites with Safari, and test iPhone apps on a real device.
11. TalkBack (Android). Google's screen reader for Android. Test with Chrome and in your Android app.
Learning the basic commands takes an afternoon. Listen for whether headings, buttons, form fields, errors and dynamic updates are announced clearly and in a sensible order. JAWS, a commercial Windows screen reader, is also widely used, especially in workplaces, so include it for business applications if you can.
Mobile app tools
12. Platform inspectors. Xcode's Accessibility Inspector on iOS and Google's Accessibility Scanner app on Android check labels, touch target sizes and contrast in native apps. Use them alongside VoiceOver and TalkBack, and test with large text and display zoom switched on. See mobile app testing.
Comparison table
| Tool | Type | Cost | Best for |
|---|---|---|---|
| axe DevTools / axe-core | Automated scanner and rules engine | Free extension and open-source engine; paid tiers | Developers while building |
| WAVE | Visual scanner | Free extension; paid API | Seeing issues on the page |
| Lighthouse | Automated audit | Free, in Chrome | Quick checks with performance |
| Accessibility Insights for Web | Guided automated and manual checks | Free | Repeatable structured reviews |
| ARC Toolkit | Inspection extension | Free | Debugging ARIA and structure |
| axe-core in tests | CI automation | Open source | Preventing regressions |
| Pa11y / Pa11y CI | CLI and CI automation | Open source | Scripted checks across many URLs |
| Colour Contrast Analyser | Contrast checker | Free | Designers and design QA |
| NVDA | Screen reader (Windows) | Free, open source | Real assistive technology testing |
| VoiceOver | Screen reader (Apple) | Built in | Safari and iOS testing |
| TalkBack | Screen reader (Android) | Built in | Android testing |
| Xcode Accessibility Inspector / Accessibility Scanner | Mobile app checks | Free | Native app labels, targets, contrast |
What tools cannot tell you
Automated checks cannot judge whether alternative text describes an image usefully, whether link text makes sense out of context, whether the focus order is logical, whether error messages help people fix the problem, or whether a custom component works with a screen reader in practice. Those need manual testing with a keyboard and assistive technology, and ideally with disabled users. Treat tool output as a starting point.
- Run an automated scanner on each page template, not just the home page.
- Tab through every page: can you reach and use everything, and can you always see where focus is?
- Test key journeys with at least one desktop and one mobile screen reader.
- Zoom to 200% and 400% and check that content reflows without horizontal scrolling.
- Check colour contrast in the design files before development.
- Add automated checks to CI so fixed issues stay fixed.
Worth noting
Do not describe a site as "WCAG compliant" on the strength of automated tools alone. Conformance claims need a full manual review against every applicable criterion.
Conclusion
A practical toolkit is small: one browser scanner, a guided checker, automated checks in CI, a contrast tool and real screen readers. Most of it is free. What matters more is using it routinely, on every template and journey, and backing it with manual testing. For designing accessibly from the start, see accessible UI/UX design.
Need an accessibility review before launch?
ZSpace Labs designs and builds websites and apps with accessibility testing built into delivery. See our UI/UX design service.
Sources
W3C, WCAG 2.2 (Recommendation, 5 October 2023). Deque, axe-core repository. WebAIM, WAVE. Chrome for Developers, Lighthouse accessibility audits. Microsoft, Accessibility Insights for Web documentation. Pa11y project site. TPGi, Colour Contrast Analyser and ARC Toolkit. NV Access, NVDA. Apple and Google accessibility documentation. Accessed 28 October 2026.
Common questions.
Only partly. Automated tools reliably find issues such as missing alternative text, missing form labels and low contrast, but many WCAG criteria need human judgement, for example whether alt text is meaningful or whether focus order makes sense. A clean automated report does not mean a site is accessible.