Every vendor on this page sells against the same standard. ADA.gov states it plainly: “WCAG 2.1, Level AA is the technical standard for state and local governments’ web content and mobile apps.” The compliance dates are equally fixed — 26 April 2027 for entities serving 50,000 or more, and 26 April 2028 for entities under 50,000 and for special district governments regardless of population.
What is not fixed is what any of it costs, and the reason is simpler than it looks: four of the five vendors below do not publish a number at all. This page reports what each one publishes, read off their own sites on 6 August 2026, and nothing else.
Which ADA Title II vendors publish their prices?
Of the five vendors compared here, one publishes a rate card: Accessible.org. Level Access, Siteimprove and Vispero publish no dollar figure of any kind and route every enquiry through a demo request or a call with an expert. CivicBinder publishes a flat fee. That split is not a judgement about quality — enterprise accessibility platforms are sold on negotiated annual contracts, and scoping a manual audit honestly does take a conversation. It is a fact about procurement: a council that needs a figure for a budget cycle can get one from two of these five today, and has to book meetings for the other three.
The five vendors, compared
| Vendor | Published price? | What it sells | Names public sector? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accessible.org | Yes — full rate card | Manual audits, VPATs/ACRs, document remediation, user testing | Yes |
| Level Access | No — request a demo | Platform: automated scanning, manual audit, remediation tooling, training | Yes — “Public Sector” |
| Siteimprove | No — demo request | Platform: accessibility, analytics, SEO and content governance | Yes — “Government” |
| Vispero | No — speak with an expert | JAWS assistive tech, plus audit/VPAT, PDF remediation, staffing, training | Yes — “State and Local Government” |
| CivicBinder | Yes — flat fee | Audit, remediation instructions, dated evidence record | Yes — only public entities |
Accessible.org: the one published rate card
Accessible.org publishes a complete price list, and its own page carries a provenance line — “Pricing information accurate and updated on July 25, 2026” — which is more than most vendors in any industry offer. Read on 6 August 2026, audits run $100–$250 per primary page or screen and $25–$100 for light pages. A WCAG-edition VPAT is $350 on top of the audit cost, Section 508 is $550, EN 301 549 is $650 and the international edition is $950. Technical support is $195/hour with a two-hour minimum. Document remediation starts at $7.50 per page for PDFs and $7.00 for Word and PowerPoint. User testing sessions are $550, or $450 booked alongside audit work, and expedited service adds $250–$750.
They also publish project-planning bands: $1,500–$3,500 for a small project, $3,500–$7,500 medium, and $7,500–$10,000 or more for a large one. Those are ranges rather than rates, and they are the closest thing in this comparison to a total. One line has moved: per-page remediation, listed at $250–$550 per page or screen, is now marked as no longer offered. Rates change — check the source before you build a budget on any figure here.
The important thing about a per-unit rate card is not whether the rates are high. Manual expert audit is genuine labour and a firm that will sign a VPAT is taking on liability a scan-and-report vendor is not. It is that the total is a function of a page count you do not know yet. Most public entities cannot count their own pages and posted documents within a factor of two before somebody crawls the site. The Municipal Web Accessibility Index publishes automated axe-core scans of US local-government homepages against the WCAG 2.0/2.1 A and AA rule set, graded A–F, free and downloadable — it does not price the job, but it names the failing rules, and a per-page quote is easier to read once you know them.
Level Access: an enterprise platform, priced by demo
Level Access sells an accessibility platform rather than a project. Its own product list covers automated scanning and manual expert evaluation, remediation and developer tooling, governance and monitoring reports, CI/CD pipeline testing, mobile testing, accessible PDF generation, VPATs and ACRs, and a training academy. It names Public Sector as a market it serves — “Solutions for government and public services” — though its homepage, read on 6 August 2026, does not name ADA Title II or municipalities specifically. It publishes no dollar figure anywhere on that page. The call to action is “Request a demo”.
For a city with an in-house web team, a multi-year accessibility programme and a budget for continuous monitoring, that shape is the right purchase and a one-off audit is not. For a town of four thousand people with one clerk who also runs the website, a platform subscription is a recurring cost against a problem that is mostly a one-time remediation job plus a document backlog.
Siteimprove: accessibility inside a wider content platform
Siteimprove describes itself as an agentic content intelligence platform, and accessibility is one module inside it alongside analytics, SEO and content governance. It is the most explicitly Title II–aware vendor in this group: read on 6 August 2026, its site names Government as an industry solution and carries both an ADA Title II Resource Center and a free ADA Title II Compliance Checker. It publishes no pricing. The call to action routes to a demo request.
The free checker is worth using regardless of whether you buy anything, on the same principle as any free scan: it costs nothing and it tells you roughly what shape you are in. What an automated checker cannot do — from any vendor, ours included — is confirm conformance. WCAG 2.1 Level AA contains criteria that no scanner can evaluate, which is why the deliverable that answers a complaint is a record of what a person tested, not a scan score.
Vispero: assistive technology first, services alongside
Vispero is the company behind JAWS, the most widely used screen reader in the world, along with Fusion, ZoomText and JAWS Inspect. That matters here because it approaches accessibility from the assistive-technology side rather than the compliance-reporting side. Alongside the software it sells digital accessibility services: expert services and staffing, audit and VPAT, PDF remediation, user experience and design, and training. Read on 6 August 2026, its “Who We Serve” list names State and Local Government explicitly, as a sub-category of Government and Public Sector alongside Federal Agencies and Section 508 and WCAG compliance programmes. It publishes no dollar figure. The call to action is “Speak With an Expert”. It also publishes free tools — the Arc Toolkit and a colour analyzer.
A vendor whose core business is the screen reader your residents actually use is a reasonable one to have test your site. Expect a federal-scale sales process; the same page that lists state and local government also lists Fortune 500 companies.
CivicBinder: a flat fee, published
CivicBinder charges $1,450 for entities serving under 50,000 and $1,950 for special districts and entities at 50,000 or more. One fee covers an audit against WCAG 2.1 Level AA, remediation instructions written for the templates and documents you actually have, and a dated evidence record of what was tested and when.
The point of a flat fee is not that it is cheaper per hour than a specialist audit. It is that the scoping risk sits with the vendor rather than with the entity that cannot count its own PDFs. It is also the wrong purchase in identifiable cases: if you need a signed VPAT, Section 508 or EN 301 549 conformance, moderated testing with disabled users, or continuous monitoring across a large estate, one of the four vendors above should do that work instead.
What to do with a quote-only vendor
Four of five vendors here will give you a number only after a call. That is normal, and it is not a reason to avoid them — but it changes the sequence of your procurement. Book the calls before the budget cycle rather than after it, and go into each one with the same three questions, so the numbers you get back are comparable.
- What is the unit, and what happens when the count is wrong? Per page, per hour, per seat, per year, or flat. If per page, ask who counts and what counts as a page — a template, a URL, or a PDF.
- Are posted documents in scope? Agendas, minutes and budget PDFs are where small-entity budgets actually go. A quote covering the site but not the document archive has left out the expensive half.
- Is this a subscription or a project? A platform renews. An audit does not. Ask what year two costs before you compare year one against anything.
Related reading
This page is a price survey. Two companion guides go further on the questions behind the numbers: how to compare Title II vendors for local government sets out the shapes of provider and covers two municipal specialists not listed here, Accessibility.Works and Dirigo Interactive, and what Title II website compliance actually costs explains which parts of the rule decide your scope in the first place. If your deadline is the open question, the extension is worth reading in full. Request a free preliminary report if you want to know what is wrong with your site before you talk to anyone about price.
Every vendor page cited here was fetched on 6 August 2026: Accessible.org’s published pricing page, and the Level Access, Siteimprove and Vispero home and services pages, each scanned for any published rate. The compliance dates and the WCAG 2.1 Level AA standard were re-read from the ADA.gov fact sheet the same day. Vendor pricing changes without notice — follow the source links before relying on any figure. CivicBinder’s own fee is our published price and is not a third-party finding. Nothing here is legal advice.