ADA Title II compliance vendors for cities in 2026: which ones publish a price

Every vendor on this page sells against the same standard. ADA.gov states it plainly: “WCAG 2.1, Level AA is the technical standard for state and local governments’ web content and mobile apps.” The compliance dates are equally fixed — 26 April 2027 for entities serving 50,000 or more, and 26 April 2028 for entities under 50,000 and for special district governments regardless of population.

What is not fixed is what any of it costs, and the reason is simpler than it looks: five of the seven outside vendors below do not publish a number at all. This page reports what each one publishes, read off their own sites, and nothing else.

Which ADA Title II vendors publish their prices?

Of the seven outside vendors checked here, two publish a rate card: Accessible.org and WCAGsafe. Deque, Level Access, Siteimprove, Vispero and CivicPlus publish no dollar figure of any kind and route every enquiry through a demo request or a call. CivicBinder, the eighth entry in the table below, publishes a flat fee. That split is not a judgement about quality — enterprise accessibility platforms are sold on negotiated annual contracts, and scoping a manual audit honestly does take a conversation. It is a fact about procurement: a council that needs a figure for a budget cycle can get one from three of these eight today, and has to book meetings for the other five.

The eight vendors, compared

Accessible.org: the one published rate card

Accessible.org publishes a complete price list, and its own page carries a provenance line — “Pricing information accurate and updated on July 25, 2026” — which is more than most vendors in any industry offer. Read on 4 September 2026, audits run $100–$250 per primary page or screen and $25–$100 for light pages. A WCAG-edition VPAT is $350 on top of the audit cost, Section 508 is $550, EN 301 549 is $650 and the international edition is $950. Technical support is $195/hour with a two-hour minimum. Document remediation starts at $4.00 per page for PDFs and $7.00 for Word and PowerPoint, on a $250 minimum order. That PDF floor read $7.50 when this page was last checked in August. The vendor’s own FAQ still answers $7.50 while its Document Remediation section now says $4.00. User testing sessions are $550, or $450 booked alongside audit work, and expedited service adds $250–$750.

They also publish project-planning bands: $1,500–$3,500 for a small project, $3,500–$7,500 medium, and $7,500–$10,000 or more for a large one. Those are ranges rather than rates, and they are the closest thing in this comparison to a total. One service has gone: per-page code remediation, listed at $250 to $550 per page or screen, is now marked as no longer offered. Accessible.org also now leads its pricing page with a headline range, “Most accessibility audits cost between $1,250 and $2,750”, and offers a cost calculator. Rates change — check the source before you build a budget on any figure here.

The important thing about a per-unit rate card is not whether the rates are high. Manual expert audit is genuine labour and a firm that will sign a VPAT is taking on liability a scan-and-report vendor is not. It is that the total is a function of a page count you do not know yet. Most public entities cannot count their own pages and posted documents within a factor of two before somebody crawls the site. The Municipal Web Accessibility Index publishes automated axe-core scans of US local-government homepages against the WCAG 2.0/2.1 A and AA rule set, graded A–F, free and downloadable — it does not price the job, but it names the failing rules, and a per-page quote is easier to read once you know them.

Deque: the engine behind most accessibility testing, sold by demo

Deque Systems publishes axe-core, the open-source rules engine that a large share of the accessibility testing industry runs on, including the browser extensions most developers reach for first. Its commercial line is the Axe platform: Axe DevTools for web and mobile, Axe Auditor for guided manual testing, Axe Monitor for site-wide scanning, an Axe MCP server for fixes inside an editor, plus consulting, audits, remediation and Deque University training. Re-read on 4 September 2026, none of those pages carries a dollar figure. There is no pricing page at all: deque.com/pricing/ returns a 404. The calls to action are “Schedule a Demo” and “Start a Free Trial” on the platform page, and “Contact Us” on the ADA compliance page, which states: “State and local governments must provide people with disabilities equal opportunities to benefit from their programs and services.” Deque publishes substantial free ADA Title II guidance aimed at exactly this buyer.

One disclosure belongs here rather than in a footnote. The Municipal Web Accessibility Index we publish is built on axe-core, which is Deque’s. Our free scans run on their engine. That is what open-source means and there is nothing irregular about it, but a price survey that quietly left out the company whose software it depends on would be worth less than one that says so.

The practical read for a small entity is the same as for the other platforms, with one extra wrinkle: the free axe browser extension and axe-core itself will find the same class of machine-detectable defect a paid scan will, at no cost. What the paid tier adds is coverage of the criteria a scanner cannot judge, workflow for a team doing this continuously, and someone accountable for the result. A town with one clerk has no team and no continuous programme, so it is buying the second and third of those, and a per-seat developer platform is an awkward shape in which to buy them.

Level Access: an enterprise platform, priced by demo

Level Access sells an accessibility platform rather than a project. Its own product list covers automated scanning and manual expert evaluation, remediation and developer tooling, governance and monitoring reports, CI/CD pipeline testing, mobile testing, accessible PDF generation, VPATs and ACRs, and a training academy. It names Public Sector as a market it serves — “Solutions for government and public services” — though its homepage, read on 6 August 2026, does not name ADA Title II or municipalities specifically. It publishes no dollar figure anywhere on that page. The call to action is “Request a demo”.

For a city with an in-house web team, a multi-year accessibility programme and a budget for continuous monitoring, that shape is the right purchase and a one-off audit is not. For a town of four thousand people with one clerk who also runs the website, a platform subscription is a recurring cost against a problem that is mostly a one-time remediation job plus a document backlog.

Siteimprove: accessibility inside a wider content platform

Siteimprove describes itself as an agentic content intelligence platform, and accessibility is one module inside it alongside analytics, SEO and content governance. It is the most explicitly Title II–aware vendor in this group: read on 6 August 2026, its site names Government as an industry solution and carries both an ADA Title II Resource Center and a free ADA Title II Compliance Checker. It publishes no pricing. The call to action routes to a demo request.

The free checker is worth using regardless of whether you buy anything, on the same principle as any free scan: it costs nothing and it tells you roughly what shape you are in. What an automated checker cannot do — from any vendor, ours included — is confirm conformance. WCAG 2.1 Level AA contains criteria that no scanner can evaluate, which is why the deliverable that answers a complaint is a record of what a person tested, not a scan score.

Vispero: assistive technology first, services alongside

Vispero is the company behind JAWS, the most widely used screen reader in the world, along with Fusion, ZoomText and JAWS Inspect. That matters here because it approaches accessibility from the assistive-technology side rather than the compliance-reporting side. Alongside the software it sells digital accessibility services: expert services and staffing, audit and VPAT, PDF remediation, user experience and design, and training. Read on 6 August 2026, its “Who We Serve” list names State and Local Government explicitly, as a sub-category of Government and Public Sector alongside Federal Agencies and Section 508 and WCAG compliance programmes. It publishes no dollar figure. The call to action is “Speak With an Expert”. It also publishes free tools — the Arc Toolkit and a colour analyzer.

A vendor whose core business is the screen reader your residents actually use is a reasonable one to have test your site. Expect a federal-scale sales process; the same page that lists state and local government also lists Fortune 500 companies.

CivicPlus: the platform your website probably already runs on

CivicPlus is a govtech platform rather than an accessibility firm — municipal websites, mass notification, utility billing, 311, records requests — and accessibility is one product inside that suite. It belongs in a price survey for a reason particular to this buyer: a large number of the entities facing an April 2027 or April 2028 deadline are already paying CivicPlus for the website itself, so the cheapest-looking route is to buy the accessibility module from the incumbent and be done.

Re-read on 9 September 2026, its Web Accessibility page publishes no dollar figure. The calls to action are “Request pricing” and“Request a Demo”. CivicPlus now describes three partner-backed products: hands-off remediation with AudioEye, DocAccess conversion of current and future PDFs into screen-reader-friendly WCAG 2.1 AA-aligned HTML transcripts, and Acquia Web Governance for accessibility, performance and quality assurance.

The distinction that matters for a Title II file is between buying platform features and your site being conformant. The rule obligates the public entity, and the third-party content exception does not reach the platform that enables posting — so a vendor’s product description is not a record of your site, your documents or your posted agendas. That question is worked through in full in who is responsible for a city website under Title II. The automatic PDF-to-HTML conversion is genuinely useful against the document backlog, which is the largest part of the job for most small entities.

WCAGsafe: the second published rate card, and the cheapest

WCAGsafe publishes a complete price list, which makes it the second of the seven outside vendors here to do so and by a wide margin the cheapest. Read on 10 September 2026, Basic is $7/month or $70/year and covers 15 pages per scan, 1,000 pages a month and 5 monitored pages. Pro is $29/month or $290/year for 50 pages per scan, 2,000 pages a month, 25 monitored pages, a scan-on-deploy webhook and PDF report export. Agency is $99/year for 250 pages per scan and 250 monitored pages. Each tier advertises an “ADA Audit Certificate” described as “your legal paper trail.” WCAGsafe now also lists a $49 one-time automated audit with a full report, certificate and “Good-Faith Summary”; that option was not on the pricing page when this survey was first published in August.

Two things about that price are worth stating plainly. The first is that it is real and published, and a monitoring subscription at $70 a year is a reasonable thing for a small entity to run alongside anything else it does. The second is that what it buys is an automated scan on a schedule, and an automated scan cannot evaluate large parts of WCAG 2.1 Level AA — that limit applies to every scanner, including the free axe-core one behind our own Index. A certificate generated from a scan records that a scan ran. It is not the same artefact as a record of what a person tested, which is what a complaint asks for.

Its site, re-read on 10 September 2026, is addressed to small businesses rather than public entities and does not name ADA Title II deadlines or local government. That does not make it unusable by a town — the WCAG standard is the same one — but it does mean the deadline tiers, the special-district rule and the document backlog that dominate a public entity’s scope are not part of what it is built to answer.

CivicBinder: a flat fee, published

CivicBinder charges $299 for entities serving under 50,000 and $499 for special districts and entities at 50,000 or more. One fee covers an audit against WCAG 2.1 Level AA, remediation instructions written for the templates and documents you actually have, and a dated evidence record of what was tested and when.

The point of a flat fee is not that it is cheaper per hour than a specialist audit. It is that the scoping risk sits with the vendor rather than with the entity that cannot count its own PDFs. It is also the wrong purchase in identifiable cases: if you need a signed VPAT, Section 508 or EN 301 549 conformance, moderated testing with disabled users, or continuous monitoring across a large estate, one of the seven vendors above should do that work instead.

What to do with a quote-only vendor

Five of the seven outside vendors here will give you a number only after a call. That is normal, and it is not a reason to avoid them — but it changes the sequence of your procurement. Book the calls before the budget cycle rather than after it, and go into each one with the same three questions, so the numbers you get back are comparable.

• What is the unit, and what happens when the count is wrong? Per page, per hour, per seat, per year, or flat. If per page, ask who counts and what counts as a page — a template, a URL, or a PDF.
• Are posted documents in scope? Agendas, minutes and budget PDFs are where small-entity budgets actually go. A quote covering the site but not the document archive has left out the expensive half.
• Is this a subscription or a project? A platform renews. An audit does not. Ask what year two costs before you compare year one against anything.

Related reading

This page is a price survey. Two companion guides go further on the questions behind the numbers: how to compare Title II vendors for local government sets out the shapes of provider and covers two municipal specialists not listed here, Accessibility.Works and Dirigo Interactive, and what Title II website compliance actually costs explains which parts of the rule decide your scope in the first place. If your deadline is the open question, the extension is worth reading in full. Request a free preliminary report if you want to know what is wrong with your site before you talk to anyone about price.

Four vendor pages cited here were fetched on 6 August 2026: Accessible.org’s published pricing page, and the Level Access, Siteimprove and Vispero home and services pages, each scanned for any published rate. Deque was added on 12 August 2026 and its Axe platform page, its ADA compliance page and the absent deque.com/pricing/ were checked that day. WCAGsafe’s pricing page and Accessible.org’s rate card were re-read on 10 September 2026; WCAGsafe’s new $49 one-time audit was added, while Accessible.org’s rates were unchanged. The compliance dates and WCAG 2.1 Level AA standard were re-read from the ADA.gov fact sheet on 10 September 2026 and are unchanged. Vendor pricing changes without notice — follow the source links before relying on any figure. CivicBinder’s own fee is our published price and is not a third-party finding. Nothing here is legal advice.