accessiBe pricing vs UserWay, AudioEye and Level Access: what web accessibility software actually costs

accessiBe is the only one of the four that publishes a price. accessWidget runs $59 a month or $490 a year up to 5,000 monthly visits, $179 or $1,490 up to 30,000, and $479 or $3,990 up to 100,000, with anything larger quoted. UserWay, AudioEye and Level Access publish no figure at all. All four pages were read on 30 August 2026.

That imbalance is the useful finding, and it is not laziness on three vendors' part. It tells you something specific about what each company is actually selling, which in turn tells you how to run the evaluation. Below is what each one publishes, what we could not get, and the line item none of the four rates cover.

What each vendor publishes, read 30 August 2026

One note on sourcing, because it matters here more than usual. Monthly figures for AudioEye circulate widely on review directories and comparison blogs. They appear on no AudioEye page we could find, so they are not reprinted above. If you have seen a number for AudioEye and want to use it in a budget, get it from AudioEye.

accessiBe pricing: the one full rate card, and the catch in how it is metered

accessWidget is priced by traffic, and the tiers are set from Similarweb estimates of average monthly visits to your domain over the previous six months, counting desktop and mobile and not deduplicating visitors. Read that sentence twice if you are budgeting, because it has two consequences most buyers miss.

The first is that your bill is determined by a third party's estimate of your traffic, not by your analytics. Similarweb and Google Analytics rarely agree, and the gap tends to widen on smaller sites. The second is that a successful marketing quarter is a price increase. Crossing 30,000 monthly visits moves you from $179 to $479, which is a jump of 168 percent for a script that is doing exactly the same work on exactly the same pages.

None of that makes it a bad deal at the bottom of the ladder. For a small business site with a few thousand visits a month, $490 a year is a genuinely low number in this category, and it is available without a sales call, which is worth something on its own. Just model the tier you will be in next year rather than the one you are in today.

Why three of the four will not print a number

There is a clean explanation, and it is more useful than assuming everyone is hiding something.

Self serve pricing works when the product is the entire purchase and one customer looks much like another. accessWidget is a script you paste into your site. The cost to serve scales roughly with traffic, so traffic makes a fair meter and a public price list works.

Quote only pricing is what you get when a large share of the value is human: manual audits by testers, expert remediation hours, VPAT preparation, staff training, legal support. Those scale with how complex your site is and how much risk you want removed, not with how many people visit. AudioEye naming three service tiers without prices is exactly this shape, and so is Level Access, which sells enterprise audits and training alongside its platform. A published rate card would misrepresent both directions of that deal.

The practical cost to you is real anyway. You cannot shortlist on price, every evaluation begins with a discovery call, and the same website will attract quotes that differ by an order of magnitude depending on scope you did not know you were setting. Fix the scope before you dial: how many templates are in scope, whether you need manual expert testing or only automated monitoring, how many documents are involved, and whether you need an accessibility conformance report at the end.

What none of these prices cover: your PDFs

This is the line item that reliably lands after the contract is signed.

Every one of these four products is a web accessibility product. It loads pages, builds the browser accessibility tree and tests it. None of them opens the PDFs your site links to, and where document accessibility exists in the range at all it is a separate purchase: accessiBe sells file and PDF accessibility as a distinct accessServices offering, and AudioEye lists Document Remediation under Additional Services rather than in any plan.

Section 508 and ADA Title II do not respect that boundary. A PDF you publish is an electronic document and it is in scope alongside the page linking to it. So the common outcome is a green dashboard sitting on top of a real gap, because the scanner that produced the dashboard never looked at a single form, benefits statement or annual report. If you want to know what those files actually cost to fix, the published per page rates are on our PDF remediation services comparison, and the tools that check them, both of which are free, are covered in 508 compliance testing software.

Do overlays reduce legal risk?

AudioEye markets a legal warranty and accessiBe has historically leaned on litigation anxiety in its marketing, so it is worth being direct. An overlay applies automated corrections at runtime to content it can identify. It addresses a portion of machine detectable issues and it cannot restructure a page that was built without headings, label a form that is unlabeled in the source, or write alternative text that means anything.

Accessibility practitioners are broadly critical of overlays for exactly this reason, and web accessibility demand letters and suits under the ADA have continued to arrive at businesses running them. If you are weighing this seriously rather than absorbing marketing claims, it is worth reading how courts have actually ruled on website accessibility claims instead of taking a vendor's warranty language at face value, because the warranties are narrow and the case law is what your counsel will be reasoning from.

The defensible position has not changed: fix the underlying code, use automated tooling for scale and regression protection, test with a keyboard and a screen reader, and treat any runtime layer as a supplement rather than a substitute.

How to compare quotes when three of four will not give you one

Write the scope down first and send the identical document to every vendor. It is the only way to get comparable numbers out of a market that prices by conversation.

Specify the number of unique page templates in scope rather than the number of URLs, because a database driven site has ten templates and ten thousand pages and vendors quote very differently depending on which figure they anchor to. State whether you require manual expert testing or only automated scanning and monitoring. Say how many PDF documents are in scope and whether you expect remediation of the existing backlog, ongoing remediation of newly generated files, or neither. State whether you need a VPAT produced at the end. Say what the contract term is, because annual commitments move the number.

Then ask two questions every vendor should answer in writing. What exactly is included when the automated scan finds something it cannot fix, and who does that work. And what happens to the price when our traffic or page count grows, which is the question the accessiBe ladder answers publicly and the other three answer only in a contract.

The short version

accessiBe publishes $59 to $479 a month, tiered by Similarweb traffic estimates, and is the only self serve rate card among the four. UserWay, AudioEye and Level Access publish nothing, because a meaningful share of what they sell is human services that a rate card cannot describe honestly. Budget for a discovery call with three of the four, and scope the job in writing before you make it.

And whichever you buy, budget separately for documents. None of these four prices include them, the regulations do not care, and if the PDFs in question are generated by your own software then remediation by the page is the wrong purchase entirely: a template corrected once and tagging enabled at render time fixes every file you will ever produce, including the ones you have not generated yet.