How We Compare | Harbor Accessibility Co.

Why This Page Names Names

Most comparison tables invent their competition. They put up a column called “Typical Agency” or “Budget Provider”, assign it whatever weaknesses flatter the vendor who built the table, and win every row. It is not research, it is set dressing, and any reader who has seen a few of them discounts the whole thing on sight.

So this one names five real providers, quotes what they publish, links to the page each claim came from, and stamps the date it was read. If we have got something wrong or a term has moved, you can see that in one click, and we would rather hear about it than leave it standing.

There is no price column, and you should know why. There used to be one, and we lost it on purpose. When we moved to scoping engagements on a call, we took the column out entirely rather than leave our own row saying “ask us” beside five competitors’ published figures. Showing everyone else’s number while withholding ours would have turned a comparison into an advertisement. If you want ours, it takes fifteen minutes and it is fixed in writing before you commit to anything.

Two other consequences worth stating plainly. We are the only one-person practice in this table, which is a real risk everyone else on it does not carry. And the table only covers providers who publish enough to be compared; the large enterprise vendors are absent because they publish almost nothing at all.

What Each Provider Publishes

Read from each provider’s own pricing page on August 4, 2026. Next review November 2026.

Six accessibility audit providers compared across how page count affects the fee, whether a VPAT or ACR is included, whether EU coverage is included, whether an individual evaluator is named, whether the delivery date is committed, whether a re-test is included, and whether more than one tester is available. There is no price column: Harbor does not publish a figure, so no provider’s figure is shown. Harbor is the only single-person practice. Claims read from each provider’s own page on August 4, 2026.
Provider	How Page Count Affects It	VPAT/ACR In the Fee	EU / EN 301 549 In the Fee	Individual Evaluator Named	Delivery Date Committed	Re-Test Included	More Than One Tester
Harbor Accessibility Co.	Yes. No page limitPriced by template only. A store with 300 products on one product template is one template. The fee does not move as your catalogue grows.	Yes. IncludedSigned VPAT/ACR, INT edition, in the fee.	Yes. Included, no upgrade feeEvery engagement ships the international edition, covering WCAG 2.2 AA, Section 508 and EN 301 549 in one document. If EU coverage becomes necessary later, the fee does not change.	Yes. Named, with a certificate numberAndrew Szigety, DHS Trusted Tester TT-2606-09221. The certificate is published on this site.	Yes. Committed at signingDay 21 on Focused. Automatic credits of 10-30% if we miss it, and you may cancel past 10 business days late.	Yes. 2 to 5 rounds includedEach round re-issues an updated ACR. Not billed separately.	No. One evaluator. New practice.A single named tester with no second reviewer and no bench. Most other providers here present a team; one does not state either way.
Accessible.orgaccessible.org/pricing	Not stated. Priced per page"$100 to $250 per primary page." Cost rises with the page count, and the audit covers a representative sample rather than every template.	No. Sold separately, from $350"Many clients add our VPAT service (WCAG edition) for $350." The audit itself does not include the document.	No. Extra: $650 EN 301 549 edition"EN 301 549 ACR: $650 + audit cost" sits above "WCAG Edition ACR: $350 + audit cost", with the combined "INT Edition ACR: $950 + audit cost". Their own page states that "Conformance with WCAG alone does not equal conformance with EN 301 549", so the cheaper edition does not reach the EU standard.	Not stated. Certified team, no individual namedStates that "All Accessible.org auditors are certified DHS Trusted Testers". That is a real credentialing claim; what is absent is a name and a certificate number attached to your specific report.	Not stated. Not publishedTheir page does not address it. It may well be available on request; we score only what is published.	Not stated. Not stated as includedA post-remediation validation process is described; the page does not state it is included in the price.	Yes. Multiple auditorsRefers to "All Accessible.org auditors" in the plural.
Skynet Technologiesskynettechnologies.com	No. Pages AND templates cappedEvery tier caps both: 5 pages / 2 templates, 10 / 4, 30 / 12, 50 / 20, 100 / 40. A big catalogue on few layouts still pushes you up several tiers.	Yes. Included in the VPAT tiersBuying from their VPAT/ACR tier table gets the document in that price. Buying an audit alone does not; that is a separate service.	Yes. EU and INT editions, one price gridThe VPAT page lists EAA / EN 301 549 and International editions among four documentation types under a single package grid running $500 to $12,500 by page and template count, with no edition surcharge stated. The VPAT is priced separately from the manual audit.	No. Not named	No. Delivery estimate only"Usually delivered in 5 business days" at the entry tier, scaling with size. No remedy stated if missed.	No. Charged separately"We also provide an optional re-audit service to validate the fixes."	Yes. Company with a team
DigitalA11Ydigitala11y.com/pricing	No. Priced per page"$100 to $350 per page." A 200 page store is priced as 200 pages, however few layouts sit behind them.	No. Sold separatelyOffered, but quoted as its own line item at $1,000 to $3,000 on top of the audit.	No. Separate tier, from $2,000Conformance reports are priced by standard: "WCAG 2.2 AA VPAT: Starting at $1,000 / Section 508 VPAT: Starting at $1,500 / EN 301 549 VPAT: Starting at $2,000 / International VPAT: Starting at $2,500." The EU document is a step up, not the base fee.	No. Not named	Not stated. Not publishedTheir page does not address it. It may well be available on request; we score only what is published.	No. 50% of the audit feeValidation after remediation is a separately priced item at half the original audit fee.	Yes. Company with a teamDescribes itself as a services-led organisation with a team.
TestProstestpros.com	Not stated. Not publishedThe page gives a range with no scope breakdown, so how page count moves the number is not stated.	Yes. Included	Yes. EU and INT editions in scopeTheir EN 301 549 page states that testing aligns with the European Accessibility Act and that VPATs and Accessibility Conformance Reports are provided, without pricing the EU edition as a separate product. Note their overall price is published as a range with no scope breakdown.	No. Not named	No. Estimate onlyTwo to four weeks, extendable.	Not stated. Not publishedNot addressed on their page. Ask them; we score only what is published.	Yes. Company with a teamHolds a GSA schedule, which is not available to sole practitioners.
Web Audit Solutionswebauditsolutions.com/vpat-services	No. Tiered by page countAudit tiers run by page type, and the VPAT is priced by page count: under 10 pages, under 20, then over 20. More pages moves both.	No. Sold separately"After your website meets accessibility standards, we will issue you an Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR)." A real service, priced on its own page rather than bundled with the audit.	No. Only in the top INT tier"VPAT 2.5 INT: Incorporates all standards (including VPAT 2.5 EU, EN 301 549 Edition)", charged as a distinct and more expensive product than the domestic editions on the same price table.	No. Not named	No. Delivery estimate only5 to 20 business days by tier, stated on their audit pricing page rather than the VPAT page.	Yes. One round, on Full audits"Follow Up Re-Test of any errors, at no additional charge" - on their Full audit tiers. Their VPAT service is priced separately, so these two cells describe the audit rather than the document.	Not stated. Not stated

How to read this table. It scores what each provider publishes, not what they are capable of. “Not published” means their page does not address it, and several of these things are commonly agreed in a contract or on a sales call, so treat those cells as questions to ask rather than as failings. One reason a price column would mislead even if we had kept it: the fees in this market are not like-for-like, since some are per page, some per tier, and some exclude the conformance document entirely. Claims were read on August 4, 2026, are re-checked quarterly, and come only from each provider’s own pages, never from a review site or a pricing aggregator.

What You Are Protected By

The table above is what we sell. This is what stands behind it when an engagement does not run to plan, and all of it lives in the signed service agreement rather than in a promise on a web page.

If the ACR Is Late, the Credit Is Automatic

Your delivery date is fixed when you sign: day 21 on a Focused engagement, day 45 on Standard, day 60 on Professional. Miss it and a credit comes off the engagement fee on its own, with nothing to claim and nothing to negotiate.

10%1 to 5 Business Days Late

20%6 to 10 Business Days Late

30%More Than 10 Business Days Late

Cancel Past 10 Business Days Late

Credits are the smaller remedy. If delivery runs more than 10 business days past the committed date, you also have the right to cancel the engagement entirely, owe nothing, and keep all work product produced to that point. The audit notes, the evidence and the draft report are yours to take to another evaluator.

You Pay for the Phases You Receive

The fee is billed across engagement milestones rather than in advance, so an engagement that stops is not billed for the phases it did not reach. If anything interrupts it, you receive all completed work product and owe nothing for undelivered phases.

Continuity If I Become Unavailable

One named practitioner is a real risk, and it is answered in writing rather than left to assumption. Your audit data is version-controlled and backed up throughout the engagement, current as the work happens rather than assembled at the end. If I become unavailable, you choose: wait, with the late-delivery credits above still running; take all completed work and a prorated refund; or accept a handoff to a qualified DHS Trusted Tester practitioner from my professional network.

Errors and Omissions Insurance

Engagements are backed by Harbor’s Errors and Omissions policy, subject to its terms and limits, and we will send you the coverage details if you ask. To be exact about what it is: professional liability cover for the practice, not a warranty of the findings, and it does not indemnify you against a third-party claim.

What these cover, precisely. They stand behind the delivery of the document and the accuracy of the testing inside it. Conformance itself belongs to your product and is decided by what your team ships, so it is something we report on rather than something any auditor can promise you, and we make no legal determination about ADA or Section 508 compliance. Read the terms for how that is written down.

Days spent waiting on client-side prerequisites, such as access, staging credentials or approvals, do not count toward lateness. Engagement terms are set in a separate signed service agreement, and the credit schedule is stated in full in the FAQ on the pricing page.

We Are the Most Expensive Row. Here Is Why, and When It Is Not Worth It.

You can buy an audit on this table for $500. You can buy a VPAT for $1,000. If what you need is a document on file and nobody is going to interrogate it, buy one of those and spend the difference on your product. We mean that.

The difference shows up when someone does interrogate it. A procurement reviewer reading a conformance report asks two questions almost immediately: who performed this evaluation, and what qualifies them. Accessible.org answers the second one honestly at the company level, stating that all of their auditors are certified Trusted Testers. What none of the providers in this table answer is the first: not one of them names the individual who did your work, or attaches a certificate number to your specific report.

Your report names Andrew Szigety and carries certificate number TT‑2606‑09221, issued under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Trusted Tester program. The certificate itself is published on this site, so your reviewer can read it before you are in the room. To be precise about what that is worth: DHS does not run a public registry, so nobody can look the number up in a database. What it gives a reviewer is a named person, an issuing authority, and a document, instead of an unattributable claim.

The other three differences are the ones that cost money when they are missing. The conformance document is in the fee rather than a separate line item. The delivery date is committed when you sign, backed by automatic credits if we miss it, instead of an estimate that slides while your deal waits. And re-tests after your team fixes things are included, with a re-issued ACR each time, rather than billed at half the original fee.

That is the whole argument. If those four things do not matter for your situation, we are genuinely the wrong choice and one of the cheaper rows will serve you better.

Who Is Missing From the Table, and Why

The large enterprise vendors are not here because they publish nothing. Their work is genuinely good and their reports carry real weight. They also sell annual platform-and-services contracts rather than single reports, and none of them will show you a price without a sales process. We are not going to put a number on them here, because every figure we could find came from third-party estimates rather than the vendors themselves, and this page only uses figures we can link to. We left them out rather than invent a column.

Overlay widgets are not here because they are a different product. A JavaScript widget that claims to fix accessibility automatically does not produce a conformance report, and procurement teams do not accept one as evidence.

Marketplace listings are not here because the scope is unknowable. You can buy something described as a VPAT for under $100 on a freelance marketplace. What arrives is usually a template filled in from an automated scan. If your reviewer is going to read it closely, that is a risk you are taking with your own deal.

Do Not Take Our Word for Any of This

A comparison table is still written by the company it flatters, however carefully it is sourced. The better test is the work itself, so both deliverables from a real engagement are published here in full, ungated. Read them before you talk to anyone, and compare them against whatever else you are considering.

Read the Sample ACR Read the Remediation Plan

The remediation plan is the one worth scrutinising. Plenty of audits end at the finding: a long PDF sorted by success criterion that is really a scanner export with a cover page. Ours groups findings by root cause, so fourteen images with bad alt text is one item with fourteen instances rather than fourteen tickets, and every finding carries the before-and-after code.

What the Certification Actually Means

Harbor audits are performed under the DHS Trusted Tester certification, the U.S. federal government’s own Section 508 test methodology, used on its own technology. It is a real certification with a number: TT‑2606‑09221, and the certificate is published on this site.

It matters because of what a reviewer can do with it. A collective claim that “our auditors are certified” names nobody, so there is nothing to follow up on. A certificate number attached to a named individual can at least be raised with the issuing body: DHS answers questions about the programme at accessibility@hq.dhs.gov. There is no self-service lookup, and we are not going to pretend otherwise.

Nothing in your report comes from a scanner alone: every failure is reproduced by hand before it is written down, and anything we could not judge with confidence says so rather than quietly passing. Every engagement is covered by Errors & Omissions insurance, subject to the policy’s terms and limits. That is professional liability cover, not a warranty of the findings, and it does not indemnify you against a third-party claim.

What Automated Tools Cannot Detect

Automated scanners check code patterns, missing alt attributes, insufficient colour contrast, empty form labels. The rest takes human judgment. These only surface through manual testing with assistive technology:

Keyboard traps, where a user can tab into a modal or date picker but cannot tab out without a mouse
Incorrect reading order, where the visual layout says one thing and the screen reader announces another
Misleading alt text, which scanners pass because the attribute exists, even though it describes the wrong thing
Missing focus management, where focus is never moved after a form submits and keyboard users are stranded
Inaccessible custom controls, which work with a mouse but expose no roles, no keyboard support and no state changes

Here is the number that matters. Of the 55 WCAG 2.2 Level A and AA success criteria, an automated tool can return a reliable pass or fail on about six. For roughly a third of them it can help, flagging candidates a person then has to judge. For the rest it has nothing useful to say at all. A scan narrows the search; it does not finish it, and it cannot sign anything.

Get a Fixed Price and a Date

See Pricing

If this is your first time buying an audit and the table above raises more questions than it answers, the buyer’s guide covers what you are paying for and how to read any quote, not only ours.

Competitor figures were read from each provider’s own published pages on August 4, 2026 and are re-checked quarterly; next review November 2026. They are reproduced here for comparison and may have changed since. Follow the links in the table to check any of them against the source. If you believe something here is inaccurate, tell us and we will correct it.