Website accessibility audit pricing is scoped, not catalog-priced. Two sites with a similar page count can cost very different amounts to test if one is a brochure template and the other has checkout, account areas, and custom components.
This article explains what actually affects the cost of a website accessibility audit — the same factors we use when quoting a website accessibility audit. It does not publish a market-average price. Published “average audit cost” ranges are rarely comparable: they mix automated scans with manual evaluations, different WCAG versions, and wildly different scopes.
Representative templates
Audits are usually priced on templates (page types), not raw URL count. Home, listing, article, form, and search results are different templates. Ten product pages that share one layout are one template; ten custom landing pages are not.
A clear template map keeps the quote honest. If new templates appear during testing, the scope — and the price — should be revisited rather than silently under-tested.
Unique components
Carousels, date pickers, mega-menus, filters, maps, chat widgets, and custom dropdowns each need keyboard and screen reader checks. A site built from a small design system is cheaper to audit than a site where every section is a one-off component.
Third-party embeds (cookie banners, booking widgets, payment frames, video players) also add time, because they often cannot be “fixed” in your codebase and still have to be documented.
User journeys
Critical paths take longer than static pages: start a quote, submit a form, complete search, change a filter, open a modal, or finish a multi-step wizard. Each journey is tested as a sequence, not as isolated screenshots.
The more journeys that matter to the business, the more manual time the audit needs.
Authenticated areas
Logged-in dashboards, patient portals, account settings, and role-based views require test accounts, sample data, and extra states (empty, error, success, permission denied). If we cannot reach those screens, they are out of scope — and should not be implied as covered.
E-commerce and booking
Cart, checkout, scheduling, and payment flows are high-effort: dynamic errors, address fields, card widgets, timeouts, and confirmation pages. They are also where inaccessible barriers most directly block revenue, so they usually belong in a commercial audit even when they add cost.
Mobile
Responsive layouts, touch targets, zoom, orientation, and mobile-only components are a separate pass from desktop. A “desktop-only” audit is cheaper and incomplete if your traffic is mobile-first.
Native iOS/Android apps are a different engagement than a responsive website. Do not assume a website audit includes the app.
PDF scope
PDFs are not free add-ons. Tagging, reading order, form fields, and scanned documents are a different skill set from HTML. If application forms, menus, or statements are core to the service, PDF sampling should be scoped explicitly — see PDF accessibility.
A website audit that ignores essential PDFs will look cheaper and leave a real gap.
Manual testing depth
Automated tools find some machine-testable issues quickly. They do not replace keyboard-only use, screen reader checks, focus order, or whether a label actually makes sense. See automated vs manual accessibility testing.
A tool export is not an audit. Quotes that only cover automated scanning are not comparable to a manual WCAG evaluation.
User testing
Testing with people who use assistive technology is valuable and is not included in every audit. If you need observed sessions with screen reader or keyboard users, that is a separate line: recruiting, facilitation, and analysis. Ask for it in the quote rather than assuming it is bundled.
Report requirements
A developer-ready findings list (WCAG criterion, location, severity, recommended fix) is the default commercial deliverable. Extra cost shows up when you also need executive summaries, screenshot packages, issue trackers mapped to Jira/Azure, or evidence formatted for counsel.
Remediation
Fixing issues is not the same work as finding them. Some teams only want the report; others want remediation support in the codebase or with their developers. Mixing “audit + fix everything” into one unnamed number makes quotes incomparable.
Retesting
A first-pass audit answers “what is wrong now.” Confirming that fixes actually work requires a retest window. Include retesting if you need a close-out, not only an opening snapshot.
VPAT / ACR
A VPAT / ACR is a structured conformance claim, not a restatement of the findings spreadsheet. It takes additional authoring and review. Useful for government or enterprise procurement; not required for every private-sector audit.
WCAG 2.2 AA vs 2.1 AA
We offer a WCAG 2.2 AA audit as the current commercial method. WCAG 2.1 AA scopes remain available where a regulation, contract, or procurement document specifically names 2.1. The version in the statement of work should match the requirement you have to meet — see what WCAG 2.1 AA requires for the 2.1 baseline.
Changing the target version can add criteria (especially around consistent help, target size, and accessible authentication in 2.2). It should be stated in the quote, not assumed.
How we quote
Send the site URL, any must-test journeys, whether account areas and checkout/booking are in play, whether PDFs matter, and whether you need VPAT/ACR or retesting. We scope templates and components from that, then price the audit. There is no honest single sticker price that fits every site.
If you need a starting point before a full audit, the free risk scan is a lighter pass — it is not a substitute for the commercial audit and is not priced the same way.