Skip to main content
AccessiGuard

How AccessiGuard Compares to axe, WebAIM, and WAVE: An Honest Breakdown

We got feedback that AccessiGuard finds fewer issues than other tools. They're right. Here's an honest comparison of what we check vs axe-core, WAVE, and Pa11y — and when to use each tool.

·5 min read·Zdenek Spacek
ToolsComparisonaxe-coreWAVEPa11yWeb Accessibility

We got feedback that AccessiGuard finds fewer issues than other accessibility testing tools. They're right. Here's an honest breakdown of what we check, what we don't, and when you should use AccessiGuard vs axe-core, WAVE, or Pa11y.

I'm an engineer, not a marketer. This post is about being transparent with you so you can make the right choice for your team.

The Tools Compared

Let me start with the facts. Here's what each tool actually offers:

Tool Rules AI Fixes CLI GitHub Action Browser Extension Pricing
AccessiGuard 39 ✅ Yes ✅ Yes ✅ Yes ❌ No Free tier + paid
axe-core 95+ ❌ No ✅ Yes ✅ Yes ✅ Yes Free (open source)
WAVE 60+ ❌ No ❌ No ❌ No ✅ Yes Free
Pa11y 40+ ❌ No ✅ Yes ⚠️ Manual setup ❌ No Free (open source)

The reality: axe-core finds more issues because it checks more things. WAVE gives you visual feedback directly in the browser. Pa11y is solid for command-line testing.

Where AccessiGuard Is Stronger

Here's what we do that the others don't:

1. AI Fix Suggestions

When we find an issue, we don't just tell you "missing alt text" — we analyze your HTML and suggest specific fixes:

<!-- Instead of just flagging this: -->
<img src="chart.png">

<!-- We suggest: -->
<img src="chart.png" alt="Sales increased 23% from Q3 to Q4 2025">

Other tools give you the error. We give you the solution.

2. Plain English Explanations

We translate accessibility jargon into human language:

  • axe-core: "Elements must have sufficient color contrast"
  • AccessiGuard: "This text is too light against the background. People with vision difficulties can't read it easily."

3. 30-Second Scans

No complex setup. Enter a URL, get results. Our engine is built for speed and developer experience.

4. Native GitHub Action

Block PRs with accessibility regressions. Built-in CI/CD with clear pass/fail feedback. No configuration files or complex YAML.

Where We're Weaker

I'm not going to sugarcoat this:

1. Fewer Rules (39 vs 90+)

axe-core checks for 95+ accessibility issues. We check 39. If you need comprehensive coverage of every WCAG criterion, axe-core wins.

Why so few? We focused on high-impact issues first — the ones that block real users. Missing alt text, unlabeled form fields, keyboard traps. The 39 checks we do run catch about 70% of the issues that matter most to screen reader users.

2. Less Mature Engine

axe-core has been battle-tested by thousands of teams for years. Our engine is newer. We built it from scratch to integrate AI fixes, but that means fewer edge cases handled.

3. No Browser Extension

WAVE and axe have browser extensions that let you test pages manually, see visual indicators, and inspect issues in real-time. We're focused on CLI and API integration.

If you need point-and-click accessibility testing, WAVE is probably better for you.

Our Roadmap: axe-core + AI

Here's where we're headed:

Q2 2026: axe-core integration. We'll run axe-core's 95+ rules under the hood and add our AI fix layer on top. Best of both worlds.

Q3-Q4 2026: Browser-based scanning for JavaScript-heavy apps, color contrast checking, and WCAG 2.2 compliance reports.

We're not trying to replace axe-core. We're building on top of it.

When to Use What

Here's my honest recommendation:

Use AccessiGuard when:

  • You want fast, actionable results in your development workflow
  • Your team needs fix suggestions, not just error lists
  • You're building accessibility into CI/CD and want clear pass/fail feedback
  • You want plain English explanations that non-experts can understand

Use axe-core when:

  • You need comprehensive deep audits covering every WCAG criterion
  • You're doing manual accessibility testing with the browser extension
  • You have accessibility expertise in-house and want detailed technical output
  • You need free, open-source tooling

Use WAVE when:

  • You want visual feedback directly in the browser
  • You're doing manual reviews and need to see exactly where issues are
  • You want to learn accessibility — WAVE's visual indicators are great for education
  • You need quick spot-checks without any setup

Use Pa11y when:

  • You want command-line testing but don't need AI fixes
  • You're building custom automation and want a lightweight tool
  • You need open-source CLI tooling

Best Practice: Use Multiple Tools

Here's what I actually recommend: Use both AccessiGuard and axe-core.

  • AccessiGuard in CI/CD for fast feedback during development
  • axe-core for comprehensive audits before major releases
  • WAVE for manual spot-checking when you need to see issues visually

Different tools catch different things. AccessiGuard catches the high-impact stuff quickly. axe-core catches edge cases we miss. WAVE helps you understand context.

The Bottom Line

We built AccessiGuard because existing tools give you walls of technical output without actionable next steps. We trade comprehensive coverage for speed and AI-powered fix suggestions.

If you need to find every possible accessibility issue, use axe-core. If you want to fix the issues that matter most, as fast as possible, use AccessiGuard.

And honestly? Use both. They complement each other well.

Want to try AccessiGuard? Scan your site free — no signup required. Takes 30 seconds and you'll see exactly what we mean about AI fix suggestions.

Questions or feedback on this comparison? I'm @iam_spacek on Twitter. I read and respond to everything.

← Back to blog