SortSite vs AudioEye 2026: Desktop Scanner vs Hybrid Overlay

Updated June 16, 2026 · 10 min read · By RatedWithAI Team

SortSite and AudioEye both address WCAG compliance, but they do it through fundamentally different mechanisms. SortSite (by PowerMapper) is a scanner — it audits your site externally and produces detailed violation reports. AudioEye is a hybrid overlay — it deploys JavaScript on your site to auto-fix issues and pairs that automation with human accessibility specialists.

This comparison covers pricing, feature depth, WCAG coverage, lawsuit protection, and who each product makes sense for.

Quick Comparison: SortSite vs AudioEye

What Is SortSite?

SortSite is a web accessibility and quality testing tool made by PowerMapper Software, a UK-based company that has been building crawling and quality tools since 1997. SortSite scans your entire website — crawling pages, forms, and dynamic content — and checks each page against WCAG 2.1 and 2.2 success criteria, Section 508, and other standards.

SortSite operates entirely externally: it never deploys code to your website. You run the scan from your desktop or via the SortSite Online cloud service, and receive a detailed report of violations by page, success criterion, and severity. Your development team then fixes the identified issues in your actual source code.

SortSite also checks for broken links, CSS errors, browser compatibility issues, and mobile rendering problems — making it a broader quality tool, not just an accessibility scanner.

SortSite 2026 pricing:

• SortSite desktop (single user): ~$299-$499/yr depending on edition and site size
• SortSite Online (cloud, team access): from ~$99/mo with scheduled scans and reporting
• SortSite API: custom pricing for enterprise integrations
• No per-site pricing model — one license covers your scanning needs

What Is AudioEye?

AudioEye is a publicly traded US web accessibility company (AEYE on NASDAQ) that has operated since 2005. AudioEye's platform combines JavaScript overlay technology with human accessibility specialists — certified professionals who monitor customer sites, review automated fixes, and implement more complex remediations that automation cannot handle.

AudioEye differentiates itself from pure AI overlays like accessiBe by emphasizing its human-in-the-loop model. Every AudioEye customer gets assigned certified accessibility specialists who conduct site audits, flag issues the automation misses, and maintain a published accessibility score on AudioEye's trust portal.

AudioEye also integrates with browser extensions used by screen reader and keyboard navigation users, attempting to serve the assistive technology community beyond just the overlay widget.

AudioEye 2026 pricing:

• Starter (~$49/mo): Automated JS fixes, basic monitoring, accessibility toolbar
• Advanced (~$149/mo): Adds certified human specialist monitoring and review
• Professional (~$299/mo): Adds legal warranty, deeper manual auditing, compliance documentation
• Enterprise (custom): Multi-site, custom contracts, dedicated specialists

AudioEye has not faced the same FTC scrutiny as accessiBe, but it operates in the same overlay category. Its human monitoring layer represents a genuine step up from pure automation, though the underlying JavaScript overlay approach still carries litigation risk.

Key Differences That Drive the Choice

1. Scan vs Fix

SortSite tells you what's wrong. AudioEye tries to fix what it can automatically. This is the fundamental fork in the road.

If you have a development team that can act on audit reports, SortSite gives you deep, accurate, standards-referenced reports at a low annual cost. You fix the actual source code, which creates durable, genuine compliance. If you don't have developer bandwidth, SortSite's reports pile up without improving your site's actual accessibility.

2. Human Expertise Access

AudioEye's biggest differentiator from pure scanning tools is access to certified accessibility specialists. These aren't chatbot responses — they're professionals who review your specific site, flag automated false positives and false negatives, and handle edge cases automated tools miss.

SortSite provides no human expert review. It's a self-service tool — you run the scan, you interpret the results, you fix the issues. For teams with internal accessibility knowledge, this is fine. For teams new to WCAG, AudioEye's specialist access provides guardrails that SortSite can't.

3. Code Impact and Overlay Risk

SortSite has zero runtime impact on your website — it scans externally and your site runs entirely as-built. AudioEye deploys JavaScript that modifies your DOM at runtime. This creates a dependency: when AudioEye's script is slow to load, blocked, or disabled, the "fixes" disappear.

Serial ADA plaintiffs know this. Many test sites with JavaScript disabled specifically to expose overlay-dependent compliance gaps. SortSite customers don't face this risk — but only if they actually implement the fixes SortSite identifies.

4. Price and Commitment

SortSite's desktop version at ~$299-$499/yr works out to $25-$42/mo — meaningfully cheaper than AudioEye's $49-$299/mo. For a development team that runs scans regularly and acts on results, SortSite delivers strong value.

AudioEye's value proposition is services-included: you're paying for automated fixes, specialist monitoring, and (on higher plans) a legal warranty. For organizations that would otherwise pay separately for an audit firm and a monitoring tool, AudioEye's bundled model can be cost-effective.

Who Should Use SortSite?

• Development teams that want detailed WCAG audit reports to fix in source code
• QA engineers building accessibility testing into release workflows
• Agencies that need to audit client sites without deploying third-party code
• Organizations where IT policy prohibits third-party JavaScript injection
• Teams that want WCAG 2.2 coverage (SortSite supports 2.2 AA; AudioEye lags on latest standards)
• Budget-constrained organizations that want thorough scanning at low annual cost

Who Should Use AudioEye?

• Small to mid-size businesses without dedicated developer resources for accessibility remediation
• Organizations that have received ADA demand letters and need rapid documentation and response
• Marketing-run websites (Squarespace, Wix, Shopify) where code-level fixes are impractical
• Legal, medical, and financial firms needing the legal warranty for risk management
• Organizations that want ongoing specialist monitoring without hiring an internal accessibility team
• SMBs whose budget accommodates $49-$149/mo but can't manage a remediation program

The Alternative: Scan, Fix, Monitor

Both SortSite and AudioEye point toward the same underlying goal: identify violations, fix them, and prevent regressions. The most durable path combines scanning clarity with monitoring coverage:

1. Baseline scan — get a complete violation inventory before touching anything (run a free WCAG scan at RatedWithAI)
2. Fix high-risk violations first — missing alt text, unlabeled form inputs, keyboard traps, and color contrast cover the majority of serial plaintiff patterns
3. Set up continuous monitoring — catch regressions as you publish new content without relying on manual scan runs
4. Document your program — an accessibility statement and remediation log matter in litigation context

RatedWithAI provides automated WCAG scanning and monitoring priced for SMBs — no overlay risks, no enterprise pricing, no desktop software required.

The Verdict: SortSite vs AudioEye

Choose SortSite if: You have a development team ready to act on detailed WCAG audit reports. SortSite's annual pricing is highly competitive, its WCAG 2.2 coverage is thorough, and it never touches your code. For teams building genuine compliance, SortSite's scan-and-fix model produces more durable results than any overlay.

Choose AudioEye if: You're an SMB without developer bandwidth that needs rapid-deploy coverage with a legal warranty. AudioEye's certified specialist model is meaningfully better than pure AI overlays, and the warranty provides real financial protection for organizations at lawsuit risk. Just understand the overlay limitations and plan for eventual source-code remediation.

For most organizations: Neither is the end state. Fix your code using SortSite-style reports, monitor for regressions, and document your program. That beats both at a lower total risk and cost.

Frequently Asked Questions