Accessibility audit companies
Nine companies ranked on accessibility audits and fixes: testing live products against WCAG and Section 508, then correcting what fails. IDEO leads on the overall score, and Fuselab Creative is second with the highest tested accessibility in this ranking.
9 companies assessed · Last reviewed September 30, 2026
Compare the companies
Showing 9 of 9 companies
Under $50k — remove this filter $50k to $150k — remove this filter Over $150k — remove this filter Up to 50 people — remove this filter 51 to 250 people — remove this filter Over 250 people — remove this filter North America — remove this filter Europe — remove this filter Clear filters-
Rank 1
IDEO
Inclusive service design, rather than a conformance audit.
Description
IDEO approaches accessibility through inclusive research: designing with people at the edges of a service, rather than checking a finished product against a standard. That suits an organisation redesigning a whole service, as in its work on nursing shift changes at Kaiser Permanente. Its tested accessibility score is among the lower ones here, so for a WCAG or Section 508 conformance report, pair it with an audit specialist.
- Live product quality
- 9.4
- UX structural depth
- 9.2
- Research evidence
- 9.8
- Accessibility, tested
- 8.6
- Post-handoff coherence
- 8.4
- Independent signals
- 9.9
- Best for
- Making a whole service inclusive, not just one product
- Notable clients
- Apple, Kaiser Permanente, Bank of America
- Entry price
- $$$$ · - an hour · from -
- Founded
- 1991
- Sources
- Clutch, DesignRush
-
Rank 2
Fuselab Creative
Accessibility audits for dashboards and data-heavy products
Description
Fuselab Creative audits the products where accessibility is hardest to get right: dashboards, colour-coded charts, dense tables and complex forms. It designs government systems under Section 508, including the Medi-Cal data visualisation interface for California's DHCS, and it posts the highest tested accessibility score in this ranking. The same team audits and redesigns, so fixes come with the findings. With thirty to fifty people, it suits a defined product rather than an organisation-wide programme.
- Live product quality
- 9.4
- UX structural depth
- 9.2
- Research evidence
- 9.3
- Accessibility, tested
- 9.7
- Post-handoff coherence
- 9.4
- Independent signals
- 7.4
- Best for
- Dashboards and data-heavy products under $150,000
- Notable clients
- NASA, NIH, Fiserv, DHCS, Uber
- Entry price
- $$ · $100–149 an hour · from $25k
- Founded
- 2017
- Sources
- Clutch, DesignRush, GoodFirms
-
Rank 3
Blink UX
Accessibility testing with real users, not just automated scans
Description
Blink UX offers accessibility audits as a stated service and tests with real users rather than relying on automated scans alone. Research is its strongest column, and its tested accessibility is among the highest here, which makes its findings easier to defend to a regulator or procurement team. Engagements often end with the report, so agree in advance who will make the fixes.
- Live product quality
- 8.3
- UX structural depth
- 8.7
- Research evidence
- 9.6
- Accessibility, tested
- 9.4
- Post-handoff coherence
- 8.4
- Independent signals
- 8.5
- Best for
- Accessibility testing with real users
- Notable clients
- The New York Times, NASA, Microsoft, Amazon
- Entry price
- $$$ · - an hour · from -
- Founded
- 2000
-
Rank 4
Fjord (Accenture Song)
Accessibility across a whole organisation, through Accenture
Description
Fjord, part of Accenture Song, suits accessibility work that spans many products, markets and back-end systems at once, where governance and rollout matter as much as the audit itself. Its tested accessibility score is strong. Independent signals is its highest column, largely reflecting the parent company, and post-handoff coherence is its weakest. For a single product audit, the contracting overhead is out of proportion.
- Live product quality
- 8.6
- UX structural depth
- 9.0
- Research evidence
- 9.2
- Accessibility, tested
- 9.1
- Post-handoff coherence
- 8.2
- Independent signals
- 9.6
- Best for
- Accessibility programmes across many products and markets
- Notable clients
- BBVA, NHS, Volkswagen
- Entry price
- $$$$ · - an hour · from -
- Founded
- 2001
-
Rank 5
Ad Hoc
Section 508 at national scale, tested because the contract requires it
Description
Ad Hoc builds federal services where Section 508 conformance is written into the contract, so accessibility testing is a routine part of delivery rather than a one-off check. Its record includes parts of HealthCare.gov since 2016 and the VA Health and Benefits app, and its tested accessibility is the second highest on this page. Federal procurement makes it slow to start, and it suits government buyers more than commercial ones.
- Live product quality
- 8.2
- UX structural depth
- 8.5
- Research evidence
- 9.0
- Accessibility, tested
- 9.6
- Post-handoff coherence
- 8.8
- Independent signals
- 8.0
- Best for
- Federal services that must meet Section 508
- Notable clients
- Department of Veterans Affairs, CMS, HealthCare.gov
- Entry price
- $$$ · - an hour · from -
- Founded
- 2014
-
Rank 6
Nava PBC
Accessible benefit systems for people under pressure
Description
Nava PBC designs public benefit systems that must work for people on old phones, on slow connections and in languages other than English, which takes accessibility well beyond a checklist. For Massachusetts, it delivered a paid family and medical leave application in five languages, and its tested accessibility is among the highest here. It works almost entirely for government, so a commercial team will find it an unusual fit.
- Live product quality
- 8.0
- UX structural depth
- 8.6
- Research evidence
- 9.2
- Accessibility, tested
- 9.5
- Post-handoff coherence
- 8.6
- Independent signals
- 7.9
- Best for
- State benefit systems used on old devices and in many languages
- Notable clients
- Commonwealth of Massachusetts, State of Maryland, Minnesota DEED, CMS
- Entry price
- $$$ · - an hour · from -
- Founded
- 2015
-
Rank 7
Mad*Pow
Accessibility and behaviour change for health products
Description
Mad*Pow works on health and wellbeing products that people use repeatedly, often while managing a condition, where cognitive load matters as much as visual compliance. Research is its strongest column, and its tested accessibility is solid. Its deployed products use older interface conventions, which lowers its live product score. It suits health products more than general-purpose conformance audits.
- Live product quality
- 8.1
- UX structural depth
- 8.7
- Research evidence
- 9.1
- Accessibility, tested
- 8.9
- Post-handoff coherence
- 8.3
- Independent signals
- 8.0
- Best for
- Health and wellbeing products used repeatedly
- Notable clients
- Blue Cross Blue Shield, American Heart Association, Fidelity
- Entry price
- $$$ · - an hour · from -
- Founded
- 2000
-
Rank 8
Artefact
Inclusive design thinking for AI products, ahead of formal audits
Description
Artefact suits accessibility questions inside new AI products, where explainability and accessibility requirements arrive together and no standard pattern exists yet. Research is its strongest column. Its tested accessibility is the lowest on this page, so treat it as a design partner for inclusive AI rather than an auditor, and bring in a specialist for a formal WCAG report.
- Live product quality
- 8.5
- UX structural depth
- 8.8
- Research evidence
- 9.0
- Accessibility, tested
- 8.2
- Post-handoff coherence
- 8.0
- Independent signals
- 8.3
- Best for
- AI products where explainability meets accessibility
- Notable clients
- Microsoft, Google, Samsung
- Entry price
- $$$ · - an hour · from -
- Founded
- 2001
-
Rank 9
Coforma
Accessible government services, at a smaller scale than its federal peers
Description
Coforma designs government services, and its research deliberately reaches users a project would normally miss. Tested accessibility is its strongest column, and it is more likely than Ad Hoc or Nava to take a smaller engagement. Independent signals is its weakest column. It suits a state agency or non-profit that needs accessible public services on a tighter budget.
- Live product quality
- 7.9
- UX structural depth
- 8.3
- Research evidence
- 8.8
- Accessibility, tested
- 9.3
- Post-handoff coherence
- 8.4
- Independent signals
- 7.6
- Best for
- Government services on a smaller budget
- Notable clients
- Department of Veterans Affairs, CDC, Indian Health Service
- Entry price
- $$$ · - an hour · from -
- Founded
- 2018
- No company on this page matches every filter. Clear filters
How this page is scored
Companies here are scored on the same six criteria and weights as the rest of the site. For an accessibility audit, read the “Accessibility, tested” column first. It reflects what each company’s shipped products actually do, not what its website promises.
What an accessibility audit covers
An audit tests a live product against the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), usually at level AA, and against Section 508 for US federal work. A useful audit combines three methods:
- automated scanning across every page
- an expert review using only a keyboard and the major screen readers
- sessions with disabled people using the product for real tasks
Each method finds problems the others miss.
A scan is a starting point, not an audit
Automated tools catch a share of problems quickly: missing labels, low contrast, images without text alternatives. They can’t judge whether that text alternative makes sense, whether the keyboard moves through the page in a logical order, or whether a chart can be understood without colour. Ask every company which screen readers and browsers it tests with, and whether disabled people take part.
From findings to fixes
A report is only half the work. A good audit ranks each problem by how badly it blocks people, explains the fix in terms a developer can act on, and retests once the fixes are in. Some companies on this page audit and fix. Others stop at the findings, so agree before signing who makes the changes.
Where accessibility is hardest
Simple marketing pages are rarely the problem. The hard cases are dashboards and charts that rely on colour, dense data tables, drag-and-drop, custom menus and date pickers, long forms with error messages and time limits, and PDFs. If your product has these, ask to see audits of similar products, not of brochure websites.
Which company suits which buyer
- Federal or state agencies that must meet Section 508: Ad Hoc, Nava PBC and Coforma.
- Product teams with dashboards or data-heavy software: Fuselab Creative.
- Teams that need evidence from real users: Blink UX.
- Accessibility across many products and markets at once: Fjord.
- Making a whole service inclusive, not just one product: IDEO.
- AI products: Artefact. Health and wellbeing products: Mad*Pow.
Related rankings
To test with users beyond accessibility, see the usability testing ranking. If the audit shows the product needs rebuilding, see product redesign. For advice before committing to either, see UX consulting.
Common questions
What are the best accessibility audit companies?
IDEO leads this ranking on the overall score, and Fuselab Creative is second with the highest tested accessibility. For US government work under Section 508, Ad Hoc and Nava PBC have the deepest delivered records. Blink UX is strongest for testing with real users.
What does an accessibility audit include?
Automated scanning, an expert review with a keyboard and screen readers, and ideally sessions with disabled users. The result should be a prioritised list of problems, each with a clear fix, followed by a retest once the fixes are made.
What is the difference between WCAG and Section 508?
WCAG is the international standard for web accessibility. Section 508 is the US law that requires federal agencies, and the products they buy, to be accessible, and its current rules refer to WCAG 2.0 level AA. Commercial products are usually audited against WCAG 2.1 or 2.2 AA.
Is an automated accessibility scan enough?
No. Scans find only some problems, such as missing labels and low contrast. They can't check whether a screen reader user can actually complete a task, so a scan alone is not a compliance check.
How much does an accessibility audit cost?
It depends on how many distinct screens and templates the product has, how many platforms are tested, and whether disabled users take part. Fuselab Creative publishes $100 to $149 an hour from $25,000. Most other companies on this page quote each audit separately.
How often should a product be re-audited?
After the fixes from the first audit, and then whenever a major release changes the interface. Accessibility slips quickly when new features ship without checks, so many teams add an accessibility review to every release.
Last reviewed September 30, 2026