What an Accessibility Audit Actually Costs (and Why)
We have lost count of how many times a prospective client has asked us what an accessibility audit costs, expecting a single number. The reality is that pricing varies significantly based on what you are auditing, and the industry has not been transparent enough about that.
Here is an honest breakdown of what drives the cost, what you should expect to pay, and how to get the most value from your investment.
Typical price ranges in the UK
For a small site of 5 to 10 pages, a WCAG 2.2 AA audit typically costs between GBP 2,000 and GBP 4,000. This covers a representative page sample, keyboard and screen reader testing across the key user flows, and a detailed findings report with remediation guidance.
A medium site of 20 to 50 pages usually falls in the GBP 4,000 to GBP 8,000 range. The increase reflects more page templates to test, more user flows to evaluate, and typically more complex interactions.
Large or complex sites, those with 50 or more pages, single page applications, or custom web applications, start at GBP 8,000 and can reach GBP 15,000 or more. Enterprise applications with multiple user roles, complex data tables, or embedded third-party widgets sit at the upper end.
These ranges assume a competent auditor testing against WCAG 2.2 AA with real assistive technology. Prices below these ranges often indicate a lighter-touch review or an automated-only assessment being marketed as an audit.
What drives the cost
Page count and template variety. An e-commerce site with product listing pages, product detail pages, a basket, checkout, account dashboard, and search results has more distinct templates than a five-page brochure site. Each template needs separate testing.
Interaction complexity. A static content page takes less time to audit than a page with a dynamic filter, auto-complete search, drag-and-drop functionality, or an embedded video player. Single page applications with client-side routing require additional focus management testing.
Number of user flows. How many distinct tasks can a user perform? Each critical flow (registration, purchase, booking, form submission) needs to be tested end-to-end with keyboard and screen reader.
Depth of assistive technology testing. A basic audit might test with one screen reader on one browser. A thorough audit tests with NVDA on Chrome, JAWS on Edge, and VoiceOver on Safari, because each combination handles ARIA differently. More AT combinations means more time.
Report format and remediation support. A PDF report is cheaper to produce. Findings delivered as structured tickets with code-level remediation guidance, prioritisation, and developer Q&A sessions cost more but deliver far more value. At Livana, we deliver findings directly into Lumi as actionable tickets, which removes the friction of translating a PDF into actual work.
Re-testing. A single-pass audit tells you what is broken. A pass with verification re-testing after fixes confirms that your remediation actually worked. The re-test is typically 20-30% of the original audit cost.
The cost of not auditing
These numbers need context. In the United States, the average ADA web accessibility lawsuit settlement is between USD 10,000 and USD 50,000, with some reaching six figures. The number of federal accessibility lawsuits has grown every year since 2018.
In Europe, the European Accessibility Act introduces fines that vary by member state but can reach hundreds of thousands of euros. Sweden's enforcement authority has already opened 28 investigations in the first year.
In the UK, the Equality Act 2010 does not specify fine amounts, but tribunal claims for disability discrimination have no cap on compensation. Beyond legal risk, inaccessible sites lose customers. The Click-Away Pound survey found that 69% of disabled customers will leave a website that they find difficult to use.
An audit costing GBP 4,000 to GBP 8,000 is a fraction of a single legal claim, and a rounding error compared to the lost revenue from inaccessible user experiences.
Getting more value from your budget
If you want to get more from your audit budget, fix the obvious structural issues beforehand. A Lumi scan can flag missing alt text, contrast failures, and broken ARIA in minutes. Fix those first, and your auditor spends their time on the complex interaction and AT issues that actually matter, rather than cataloguing things a machine could have caught.
Fix the critical issues and then get a re-test, rather than commissioning an entirely new audit. It is cheaper and more focused.
After your audit, Lumi can monitor for regressions between annual reviews. It will not catch everything a human would, but it flags when a code change reintroduces a problem that was already fixed. All findings, from both scanning and manual audits, live in the same Lumi backlog.
What to ask before you hire an auditor
Ask what assistive technologies they test with. If the answer is "we use an automated tool," that is not a manual audit. Ask how findings are delivered. A PDF that sits in a shared drive gathers dust. Structured tickets with clear acceptance criteria get fixed. Ask whether re-testing is included or priced separately. And ask what WCAG version and conformance level they test against, because AA and AAA are different scopes at different price points.
Accessibility auditing is not a commodity. The cheapest option is rarely the best value. But it does not need to be opaque either. You deserve to know what you are paying for and why.
