Siteimprove vs Level Access
Feature checklists rarely decide anything. What decides it is the pricing metric, who has to write the tests, and which limitation you can live with.
Entry price
Quote on request
Quote onlyQuote on request
Quote onlyWhat drives the bill
The metric that actually scales your invoice.
Enterprise annual contracts priced by pages crawled and modules.
Enterprise contracts combining platform licence with audit and advisory services.
Free tier
Free browser extension for single-page checks.
No free tier.
Open source
Self-hostable
No-code authoring
Languages
Platforms
Fits teams
Adoption
Widely used
Siteimprove · since 2003
Established
Level Access · since 1997
Strengths
- Scans entire large sites and assigns findings to content owners, not just developers.
- Combines accessibility with SEO and content quality in one governance view.
- Reporting suited to demonstrating compliance progress to executives and regulators.
- Human expert audits and assistive-technology user testing alongside the tooling.
- Legal and VPAT support for organisations under compliance pressure.
- Covers web, mobile and desktop applications.
Limitations
- Expensive and aimed at organisations with a governance function.
- Weak fit for application testing as opposed to content sites.
- Limited shift-left developer tooling compared to Deque.
- Expensive, services-heavy engagement model.
- The UserWay overlay heritage is contentious — automated overlays are widely criticised by accessibility practitioners.
- Not a self-serve developer tool.
Best for
Universities, government and large content organisations with legal accessibility obligations.
Organisations facing accessibility litigation or formal procurement requirements.
All of these integrate with: Jira.
Pricing last reviewed August 2026 and is indicative only — confirm on each vendor’s own page.