Study: AudioEye detects up to 2.5x more issues than other tools
Get Report)
REPORT
Third-party study shows AudioEye detects 89-253% more WCAG issues than other leading accessibility tools
Independent research reveals wide variation in accessibility detection across tools
On this page
As accessibility enforcement accelerates, many organizations rely on automated tools to identify issues that need to be fixed. But independent research shows detection varies widely across tools, especially at the WCAG levels most closely tied to legal risk.
When tools surface fewer issues, it can look like progress. This research shows that lower issue counts often reflect limits in automated detection, not the absence of accessibility barriers.
KEY FINDINGS
What the data showed
When automated tools scanned identical pages under the same conditions:
Detection varied sharply across tools, with some returning few or no findings at certain WCAG levels, even though other tools identified multiple valid issues.
Differences among tools were most pronounced at WCAG Levels AA and AAA, where several tools failed to report any findings across multiple sites.
Lower issue counts often reflected limits in testing, not the absence of accessibility barriers.
“Adience applied the same rigorous testing approach to every tool, ensuring each was evaluated under identical controlled conditions. What surprised us most was the significant scale of variation in the results. ”
— Chris Wells | Managing Director @ Adience
Where AudioEye creates separation
Within the scope of this comparison, AudioEye delivered broader and more consistent automated detection across sites and WCAG levels than any other tool tested.
Only AudioEye detected valid issues across all websites and WCAG levels (A, AA, and AAA)
AudioEye detected 89-253% more WCAG issues than other tools
AudioEye detected more unique WCAG violations than any other tool
- Why this research exists
Many automated accessibility tools claim WCAG coverage, which can make them feel interchangeable. In practice, they apply automated rules differently and surface different issues. Those differences aren’t always obvious to buyers, but they can materially affect what risks are identified and addressed.
This research was designed to test that assumption under controlled conditions, giving buyers clearer, independent insight into how automated tools actually perform.
- Methodology
In a controlled study, Adience(opens in a new tab) tested five leading accessibility tools — AudioEye, accessiBe, Deque, EqualWeb, and UserWay — against the same websites under identical conditions. The analysis focused on automated detection only, measuring performance against WCAG Levels A, AA, and AAA.
The findings provide third-party validation of differences in automated detection, helping buyers understand which tools offer clearer visibility into accessibility risk and which may leave critical barriers undetected.
Get the full report
Access the complete findings, including:
Side-by-side detection results
WCAG coverage at Levels A, AA, and AAA
Valid issue comparisons across six real-world websites
Detailed methodology
)
This study was commissioned by AudioEye and conducted independently by Adience. Adience does not endorse any specific vendor. Findings reflect results under the stated test conditions.