Government Accessibility Compliance Cost Comparison 2026

1. The Government Accessibility Budget Crisis

The DOJ's ADA Title II rule is now in effect. State and local government websites must meet WCAG 2.1 Level AA — with deadlines of April 2026 for large agencies and April 2027 for smaller ones. The legal requirement is clear. The funding reality is not.

According to the National Association of State Chief Information Officers (NASCIO), 54% of state CIOs report having no dedicated budget for digital accessibility. Not an insufficient budget — no budget at all. These agencies are expected to achieve compliance with zero earmarked funding.

The cost gap is staggering. When North Dakota assessed what it would take to bring state websites into compliance, the estimate came in at $1.5 million to $2 million. For a state with a population of 780,000 and a tight IT budget, that's a compliance ask that competes directly with infrastructure, cybersecurity, and constituent services.

And North Dakota isn't unusual — it's just one of the few states that publicized the number. Multiply that figure across 50 states, 3,000+ counties, and 19,000+ municipalities, and you begin to see the scale of the problem.

This is where tool selection becomes critical. The difference between choosing a $50,000/year enterprise platform and a $348/year automated scanner isn't marginal — it's the difference between compliance being achievable or not. For a government agency evaluating accessibility tools, cost is not a secondary consideration. It's the primary constraint.

2. Complete Pricing Comparison: 5 Tools Side by Side

Below is a comprehensive pricing comparison of the five most commonly evaluated accessibility tools for government use. Prices reflect publicly available data, vendor documentation, community reports, and verified G2/Capterra reviews as of mid-2026.

The pricing gap is not subtle. Level Access costs 72x–287x more than RatedWithAI. Siteimprove costs 29x–144x more. Even accessiBe — which doesn't provide real code-level scanning — costs up to 10x more at its higher tiers.

Now let's look at what each tool actually delivers — and whether those premium prices are justified for a government agency that needs WCAG compliance.

3. Tool-by-Tool Deep Dive

Level Access: $25,000–$100,000+/year

Level Access (formerly SSB BART Group) is the premium tier of accessibility services. They combine automated scanning with manual expert audits, VPAT/ACR documentation, staff training, and ongoing consulting. Their client list includes federal agencies, major banks, and Fortune 500 companies.

What you get: Dedicated accessibility consultants, manual WCAG audits with assistive technology testing, custom VPAT creation, remediation guidance, training programs, and their Access Platform for automated scanning.

The government case for it: If you're a federal agency or large state department handling hundreds of web properties with complex applications (tax portals, benefits systems, GIS tools), Level Access's comprehensive approach has genuine value. Manual testing catches the 30-40% of WCAG issues that automated tools miss.

The government case against it: For a county website with 200 pages of meeting minutes, zoning documents, and contact information, spending $25,000+ on manual audits is wildly disproportionate. The vast majority of issues on informational government sites — missing alt text, insufficient color contrast, unlabeled form fields — are automatically detectable. You don't need a $100K consulting engagement to find them.

Siteimprove: $10,000–$50,000+/year

Siteimprove is probably the most entrenched accessibility tool in state and local government, particularly in higher education. Their platform bundles accessibility scanning with SEO, content quality, and analytics modules — their "Digital Certainty Index."

What you get: Automated WCAG scanning, an accessibility score dashboard, issue tracking and assignment, historical compliance trends, SEO analysis, content quality checks, and analytics. The platform is polished and the reporting is excellent.

The government case for it: Siteimprove has significant government market penetration and name recognition. Their reporting is designed for executive stakeholders who want high-level compliance dashboards. If your agency also needs SEO and content governance, the bundled platform can consolidate multiple tools.

The government case against it: Most government agencies evaluating Siteimprove want the accessibility module — not SEO optimization or analytics (they likely already use Google Analytics). But Siteimprove's sales process aggressively bundles modules, and the per-page pricing model means costs escalate quickly. A state agency with 50,000+ pages across multiple departments can easily exceed the $50,000/year mark. For context, that's 144 years of RatedWithAI coverage. Read our full Siteimprove alternative comparison for a detailed feature breakdown.

AudioEye: $2,000–$10,000+/year

AudioEye positions itself as a hybrid solution — combining automated scanning with an "always-on" remediation layer that applies fixes in real time. They have a dedicated government vertical and market heavily to public sector agencies.

What you get: Automated scanning and monitoring, a client-side remediation layer that applies JavaScript fixes, WCAG compliance reports, and optional expert auditing services at higher tiers.

The government case for it: AudioEye's automated remediation layer can address some issues quickly without requiring code changes — which is appealing for agencies with limited developer resources.

The government case against it: AudioEye has faced significant legal scrutiny. They were named as a co-defendant in over 700 ADA lawsuits alongside their own clients — meaning businesses paying AudioEye for protection were still sued. The FTC also investigated their compliance claims. Government procurement officers should note this litigation history when evaluating vendor risk. The client-side remediation approach also raises concerns about reliability and whether it constitutes genuine compliance under Section 508.

accessiBe: $490–$3,500+/year

accessiBe is the most controversial name in accessibility. They sell an AI-powered overlay widget called "accessWidget" that attaches to your website via a JavaScript snippet and attempts to automatically fix accessibility issues on the fly.

What you get: A widget that adds an accessibility menu to your site, applies CSS/JavaScript modifications for text sizing, contrast, and navigation, and claims AI-driven compliance with WCAG standards.

Why government agencies should be cautious: This is not a gray area. The accessibility community's position on overlays is unequivocal:

• The FTC fined accessiBe $1 million for deceptive marketing claims about their product's ability to make websites compliant.
• The National Federation of the Blind issued a public statement opposing accessiBe specifically, calling their claims misleading.
• Over 800 accessibility professionals signed an open letter (overlayfalsehood.com) opposing overlay products as a category.
• Multiple DOJ enforcement actions have targeted websites using overlay widgets, confirming that overlays do not constitute compliance.
• Overlays don't modify source code — they apply surface-level patches that miss structural WCAG violations and can actually introduce new accessibility barriers.

For a government agency subject to Section 508 requirements and the new ADA Title II rule, relying on an overlay is a compliance risk, not a compliance solution. Read our detailed ADA website compliance guide for why code-level remediation is the only defensible approach.

RatedWithAI: $348/year ($29/month)

RatedWithAI is built on a different premise: that the core accessibility scanning most organizations need shouldn't cost five figures. The platform uses the axe-core scanning engine — the same open-source engine developed by Deque Systems that powers Google Lighthouse, Microsoft Accessibility Insights, and the majority of automated accessibility testing worldwide.

What you get:

• Automated WCAG 2.1 AA scanning powered by axe-core — the industry standard, not a proprietary black box
• Continuous monitoring — your site is re-scanned regularly to catch regressions as content changes
• Detailed violation reports with code-level location, WCAG criterion reference, and plain-English remediation guidance
• Compliance scoring that tracks your accessibility posture over time
• No annual contract — pay monthly, cancel anytime. No sales calls, no demos, no procurement gymnastics

What it doesn't include: Manual expert auditing, VPAT creation services, staff training, or SEO/analytics modules. Those are genuine differentiators for enterprise platforms — and for agencies that need those services, they should budget accordingly. But if your primary need is automated WCAG scanning and monitoring, paying 29x–287x more for it because it comes bundled with services you don't use doesn't make fiscal sense.

Try the free accessibility checker to see what axe-core scanning finds on your agency's website — before spending anything.

4. ROI Calculator: What Accessibility Monitoring Actually Saves

For budget-constrained agencies, accessibility monitoring isn't an expense — it's insurance. Here's the math:

Direct Legal Risk

The Numbers That Matter

One prevented lawsuit pays for 43+ years of RatedWithAI. Even at the low end of settlement costs ($15,000), dividing by $348/year gives you over four decades of monitoring coverage. At the average settlement range, that ratio climbs to 100+ years.

For perspective:

• ADA Title II lawsuits against government entities increased 23% year-over-year in recent years
• Government agencies are higher-profile targets because they're explicitly covered under Title II with no ambiguity
• The DOJ's 2024 Title II rule eliminated the "we're working on it" defense — specific deadlines now apply
• Plaintiff firms are systematically scanning government websites for low-hanging violations to generate cases

Beyond Lawsuits: Operational ROI

Legal risk is the headline, but accessibility monitoring delivers operational value too:

• Reduced help desk volume. Inaccessible websites generate phone calls and in-person visits from citizens who can't complete tasks online. Every form that can't be submitted digitally becomes a staff-assisted transaction costing $8-$15+ per interaction.
• Wider constituent reach. The CDC reports that 1 in 4 US adults has a disability. An inaccessible government website literally excludes a quarter of the population it serves.
• SEO improvement. Accessibility fixes — semantic HTML, alt text, heading structure, ARIA labels — are also SEO best practices. Improved search rankings mean more citizens find the information they need.
• Grant and funding compliance. Increasingly, federal grants require digital accessibility compliance. Monitoring provides documentation that your agency meets these requirements.

Cost Per Website Comparison

Government agencies rarely operate a single website. Between the main agency site, department subsites, portals, and special project sites, even a small municipality might manage 3-5 web properties. Here's what monitoring costs at scale:

At the 20-site level — typical for a mid-size county or state department — RatedWithAI costs $6,960/year vs. $150,000+ for Siteimprove. That's $143,000 in annual savings that can be redirected to actual remediation work, developer time, or other IT priorities.

5. Government Procurement Considerations

Government procurement isn't just about price — it's about defensible purchasing decisions. Here's how each tool maps to common government procurement requirements:

Section 508 Compliance

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires federal agencies (and state agencies receiving federal funding) to make electronic and information technology accessible. Critically, this applies to the tools agencies use, not just the websites they produce. Your accessibility testing tool itself should be accessible.

• Level Access: Maintains a VPAT for their platform. As an accessibility-focused company, their own tools generally meet WCAG standards.
• Siteimprove: Publishes a VPAT/ACR for their platform. Generally accessible, though some users report occasional issues with their dashboard.
• AudioEye: Provides a VPAT. Some concerns about the overlay approach's own accessibility.
• accessiBe: Provides a VPAT, but the irony of accessibility professionals finding their own widget inaccessible is well-documented in the community.
• RatedWithAI: Built with accessibility as a core design principle, with semantic HTML, keyboard navigation, and WCAG-compliant interface design.

FedRAMP and Cloud Security

FedRAMP (Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program) standardizes security assessment for cloud services used by federal agencies. Here's the key nuance for government procurement officers:

• FedRAMP is required for federal agencies using cloud services that process government data
• State and local agencies are NOT required to use FedRAMP-certified vendors, though some reference FedRAMP in their own procurement standards
• Accessibility scanning tools analyze public web pages — they don't process PII, HIPAA data, or classified information. The security profile is fundamentally different from, say, a cloud-hosted HR system
• Of the tools compared here, Level Access and Siteimprove have the most mature security postures for enterprise/government. However, the security requirement for a tool that scans public HTML is categorically different from one that stores citizen data

Procurement Vehicle Compatibility

Government agencies typically purchase through established procurement vehicles:

• GSA Schedule / MAS: Level Access and Siteimprove are available through GSA contracts, which simplifies federal procurement. Smaller tools may not have GSA Schedule listings — but at $348/year, most agencies can purchase RatedWithAI through micro-purchase authority ($10,000 threshold for federal; varies by state) without a formal procurement process.
• State contracts: Several states have existing enterprise agreements with Siteimprove. Check your state's IT procurement portal. However, being on a state contract doesn't mean it's the most cost-effective option — it means it was pre-approved, often years ago when alternatives didn't exist.
• P-card / credit card purchases: Tools under the micro-purchase threshold can typically be purchased with a government purchase card. RatedWithAI's $29/month cost falls well within this range, enabling rapid deployment without procurement delays.

Sole Source Justification

When choosing any tool, government agencies must often justify the selection. Here are the defensible arguments for each approach:

• Enterprise tools (Level Access, Siteimprove): "We need comprehensive manual auditing, VPAT creation, and training services that only full-service providers offer."
• RatedWithAI: "We need automated WCAG scanning and monitoring using the industry-standard axe-core engine at a cost that's proportional to our budget. The tool provides the same core scanning functionality as enterprise alternatives at 97%+ cost savings, with no contract lock-in." See our pricing page for detailed plan information.

6. What Government Agencies Actually Need

Here's a framework for determining what level of tooling your agency actually requires. Be honest about what you need vs. what vendors are selling you.

Every Agency Needs (Tier 1 — Automated Scanning)

• Automated WCAG 2.1 AA scanning across all pages
• Violation reports with code location and fix guidance
• Continuous monitoring to catch regressions
• Compliance scoring for reporting to leadership

Cost to meet this need: $348/year with RatedWithAI. This tier catches 60-70% of WCAG violations — including the most common and highest-impact issues like missing alt text, color contrast failures, unlabeled form fields, and heading structure problems.

Some Agencies Need (Tier 2 — Manual Auditing)

• Expert manual testing with assistive technologies (screen readers, switch devices)
• Testing of complex interactive components (modals, dynamic forms, SPAs)
• VPAT/ACR documentation for procurement requirements
• Keyboard navigation and focus management auditing

Cost to meet this need: $5,000-$25,000 per audit (one-time, not annual). Typically needed for complex web applications — citizen portals, benefits systems, interactive maps. Consider hiring a specialized accessibility consultant for a one-time audit and using automated monitoring for ongoing coverage.

Few Agencies Need (Tier 3 — Enterprise Platform)

• Integrated SEO and content quality analysis
• Multi-department dashboard with role-based access
• Brand governance and content consistency checking
• Dedicated account manager and custom reporting

Cost to meet this need: $10,000-$100,000+/year. This is where Siteimprove and Level Access genuinely differentiate. But be rigorous: if your agency doesn't actually need SEO optimization, brand governance, or custom enterprise features, you're paying for capabilities you'll never use.

7. Our Recommendation by Agency Size

Notice that RatedWithAI is the recommended starting point for three out of four agency types. The only scenario where an enterprise platform is clearly justified is for large agencies with complex web applications and the budget to support it. For everyone else, starting with automated scanning at $29/month is the fiscally responsible approach.

The smart strategy for most agencies: Start with RatedWithAI for automated scanning across all your sites. Use the violation reports to prioritize remediation. If you discover complex application-level issues that require manual testing, hire a consultant for a targeted audit of those specific properties. This hybrid approach gives you comprehensive coverage at a fraction of the all-enterprise cost.

8. Frequently Asked Questions

The Bottom Line

The government accessibility compliance market has operated on an assumption that compliance requires enterprise pricing. For agencies with complex web applications, specialized audit needs, and large IT budgets, enterprise platforms provide genuine value. We're not suggesting Level Access or Siteimprove are bad products — they're not. They're just not the right products for every agency.

For the majority of state and local government agencies — the ones working with limited budgets, small IT teams, and informational websites — $348/year for real WCAG scanning is not a compromise. It's the same axe-core engine, the same violation detection, the same remediation guidance. The difference is the price tag and the absence of features most agencies don't need.

The Title II deadline is here. 54% of state CIOs have no accessibility budget. The question isn't whether your agency needs accessibility monitoring — it's whether you'll spend $50,000 for it or $348.

Run a free scan. See what your agency's website looks like through an accessibility scanner. Then make the call.