Guide
What drives the cost of an accessibility audit?
Audit prices are not a market rate for a standard object. They are a function of scope, component complexity, how much manual and assistive technology testing is included, and whether remediation and retesting are part of the job. This guide explains the levers so you can compare quotes that actually describe the same work.
This page deliberately contains no price figures. Rates vary by market, supplier and scope, and an invented number would be worse than none. Ask each supplier what their quote includes.
What you are actually buying
An accessibility audit is an evaluation of a product, at a version, on dates, against a named standard. The deliverable is usually three things: a list of findings with evidence, a result for each success criterion in scope, and a remediation plan. Anything beyond that is a separate service, and the quote should say so.
The distinction that changes the number most is evaluation versus remediation. Finding a defect takes minutes. Fixing it in a component library, retesting it across templates and confirming it with a screen reader takes longer, and it is engineering work rather than audit work. Suppliers who bundle remediation are selling a different product from suppliers who only report.
The six cost drivers
1. Scope and sample size
Auditing every URL is not usually feasible, and it is not what a competent auditor proposes. GOV.UK’s guidance is to test a representative sample: page templates, content types, key interactive features, the most common or important user journeys, and any area already known to be problematic. A site with four templates costs less than a site with forty, even at the same page count.
Watch for the reverse too. A quote that covers “up to ten pages” without naming templates can miss the checkout, the account area or the document library, then require a change order. Scope should be described by template and journey, not only by count.
2. Component complexity
Static pages are cheap to evaluate. Custom comboboxes, data grids, date pickers, drag-and-drop builders, maps, rich text editors and multi-step forms are not. Each needs keyboard testing, focus management, state announcements and often a screen-reader pass on more than one browser and assistive technology pair.
This is also where remediation cost concentrates. A defect in a shared component is fixed once. The same defect hard-coded on thirty pages is fixed thirty times, which is why the presence of a component library changes both the audit and the fix.
3. Manual and assistive technology testing
Automated rules are fast and cheap; manual testing is the expensive part and the part that finds the issues users actually hit. A credible audit includes keyboard-only operation, focus order and visibility, zoom and reflow, text spacing, error handling, and testing with assistive technology such as a screen reader or magnification software.
GOV.UK is explicit that an audit should include testing with assistive technologies even where the team has already done its own testing, and that suppliers must not rely exclusively on automated tools. A quote that includes no manual pass is not a cheaper audit; it is a different, weaker product.
4. Number of environments
One browser on one operating system is the baseline. Add a second browser, a mobile viewport, iOS and Android, and the matrix multiplies. Most audits do not test every combination; they choose a defensible set and state it. The size of that set is a cost driver, and it should be visible in the report rather than implied.
5. Remediation support
Some suppliers stop at the report. Others join triage, write tickets, review pull requests or pair with the front-end team. Support is usually charged separately because it is open-ended. The useful question is not “is support included” but “how many hours, for how long, and at what point does it become a new statement of work”.
6. Retest and maintenance
A retest verifies that the fixes worked and did not break something else. Without it, the report describes a version that no longer exists. GOV.UK advises booking the follow-up audit at the same time as the first one, which also makes the cost visible up front instead of arriving as a surprise before launch.
Why quotes are hard to compare
Two quotes for “an accessibility audit” can differ because one includes:
- a manual pass and the other only a scanner report;
- assistive technology testing and the other keyboard testing only;
- a defined page and template sample and the other an open-ended crawl;
- a per-criterion results table and the other a list of issues;
- a retest and the other a single snapshot;
- remediation support and the other a PDF.
Normalise before you compare. Ask every supplier for the same six facts: what is in scope, which standard and level, which methods and tools, which assistive technology combinations, what the deliverable contains, and whether a retest is included. Thereport guide lists the sections a report should have, which makes a useful checklist for reading proposals.
How to reduce cost without cutting quality
- Fix the cheap defects first. Contrast, missing labels, absent alt text, broken heading order and invisible focus are common and inexpensive to fix. Removing them before the audit lets the auditor spend the budget on harder problems.
- Consolidate components before you test. If three button styles do the same job, reduce them to one. Fewer variants means fewer things to evaluate and fewer places to fix.
- Scope by template, not by page count. Name the templates, the journeys and the components in scope, and list what is excluded. This protects both sides from change orders.
- Prepare the access you will need. Test accounts, sample data, a staging URL that does not change mid-audit, and a named contact who can answer questions. Audit time lost to access problems is billed either way.
- Book the retest with the audit. It is usually cheaper than a second engagement, and it forces the remediation plan to have dates.
- Do not buy AAA. If your target is WCAG 2.2 AA under the EAA, the UK public sector regulations or a US procurement, testing AAA criteria adds cost without changing your compliance position.
What to put in the brief
GOV.UK’s audit guidance suggests a brief that names the service, its users, the journeys and patterns to test, the timescale, the assistive technology and browser combinations, the target level, who will read the report, and how much support you want afterwards. It also advises telling suppliers where you are in the development cycle and whether part of the build was outsourced.
Add two things for a commercial engagement: the format you need the findings in, so they can be imported into your tracker, and the date by which you need the retest. Both reduce the chance of paying for a deliverable you cannot use.
Need a scoped quote? TheAccessProof audit service publishes what the engagement includes: automated and manual testing against WCAG 2.2 AA, a per-criterion results table, findings with evidence, and a retest. Read the scope before you compare it with anyone else’s.
Frequently asked questions
Why do accessibility audit quotes vary so much?
Because the quotes are rarely for the same thing. Scope, sample size, whether assistive technology testing is included, whether remediation support is included, and whether a retest is bundled all change the work. Two quotes that look different usually describe different deliverables.
Is a cheaper automated scan enough?
No, if you need to rely on the result. Automated tools catch a subset of WCAG failures and cannot judge reading order, focus behaviour, error messaging or screen-reader output. A scan is useful as a baseline before a manual audit, not as evidence of conformance.
How many pages should be in scope?
Enough to cover every template, component and core journey, not every URL. GOV.UK advises a representative sample of page templates and content types, key interactive features and common user journeys, and says auditing an entire site is not usually feasible.
Does remediation cost more than the audit?
Often, yes. An audit produces findings; remediation produces code and design changes, and that work scales with how much of the front end is affected. Component-level defects cost less to fix than the same defect repeated per page, which is why a shared component library reduces total cost.
Do I need a retest?
If you intend to make a public claim, yes. A report with no retest records a snapshot of a version that no longer exists. GOV.UK advises services working to the Service Standard to book a follow-up audit when they book the first one, so the fixes are verified rather than assumed.
Can I reduce cost by fixing issues before the audit?
Yes, and it is the most reliable saving. Fix the cheap, high-frequency defects first: contrast, missing labels, alt text, heading order, focus visibility. An auditor then spends time on the harder problems instead of documenting issues your own team could have caught.
More general questions are answered on the AccessProof FAQ.
Sources and last checked
Links opened on 24 October 2026. No supplier price list was used, and no figure on this page is derived from one.
- GOV.UK Service Manual, getting an accessibility audit:gov.uk - checked 24 October 2026.
- GOV.UK Service Manual, testing with assistive technologies:gov.uk - checked 24 October 2026.
- W3C WAI, WCAG-EM overview (evaluation methodology):w3.org - checked 24 October 2026.
- W3C WAI, evaluating web accessibility overview:w3.org - checked 24 October 2026.