Lighthouse gives one page an accessibility score from a weighted set of automated checks; BearScan checks a whole site and reports each failure instead of a score. A Lighthouse score of 100 does not mean a page is accessible, because manual checks are excluded from it.
Summary
| Question | BearScan | Lighthouse | Better fit |
|---|---|---|---|
| How it checks your site | Real-browser scan, then models read what text and images mean | Pass-or-fail audits scored 0 to 100, run locally in Chrome | Depends |
| How much of the site it covers | 10 pages free; 100 with a free account; up to 1,000 in a report | One URL per run; manual checks are listed but not scored | Depends |
| What you get back | Every issue with its page, element, fix and rule; a PDF; what it couldn't check | A score plus a list of failed audits; HTML, JSON or CSV | BearScan |
| Whether it changes your site | No: it only reads public pages | No: it loads the page in a local Chrome | Depends |
| What it costs | Free scan; $49 report per site; $29 a month for Monitoring | Free and open source (Apache-2.0) | Lighthouse |
| How it fits your workflow | API, MCP server, GitHub pull-request checks, weekly rescans | Lighthouse CI for every commit; needs Node 22 or later for the CLI | Depends |
| What it promises about the law | Never claims compliance; no legal protection offered | Makes no compliance claim | Depends |
Which should you choose?
| If you want | Choose |
|---|---|
| You need the whole site, not one page at a time. | BearScan |
| You need the checks Lighthouse leaves out of its score, such as keyboard operation and focus. | BearScan |
| You want issues, not a number. | BearScan |
| You want a quick, free check of one page in the browser you already have open. | Lighthouse |
| You track performance and accessibility together. | Lighthouse |
How we compared
We compared the two on seven questions a buyer asks: how each checks a site, how much of it they cover, what you get back, whether they change your pages, what they cost, how they fit a team’s workflow, and what they promise about the law. We make BearScan, so weigh our description of it accordingly. To keep the comparison honest we describe Lighthouse from its own pages, attribute its marketing claims to it, cite every source, and say where Lighthouse is the better choice. Prices and terms were read on and change often; check the vendor’s page before you buy.
Lighthouse at a glance
Lighthouse is a free checker. Google's free auditing tool, built into Chrome DevTools, whose accessibility section scores a page from 0 to 100.
BearScan at a glance
BearScan is a website accessibility scanner. It checks a site against WCAG 2.2 Level A and AA in a real browser, reports each issue with the page, the element, how to fix it and the rule it breaks, and lists what it couldn’t check. Scanning is free; a full report is $49.
Feature by feature
How it checks your site
BearScan. BearScan loads pages in a real browser and measures what a visitor gets: computed names, contrast from computed styles, Tab order and visible focus, layout at 320 pixels wide, text spacing and content that moves. It then uses language and vision models to judge what text and images mean, such as whether a label or alt text fits. A rule it can't decide is reported as incomplete, never as a pass.
Lighthouse. Lighthouse is Google's open-source auditing tool. It runs locally in Chrome DevTools, from a command line or in PageSpeed Insights. Its accessibility score is a weighted average of pass-or-fail audits, with weights based on axe user-impact assessments, and a page gets no credit for partially passing an audit. Sources: developer.chrome.com (opens in a new tab), developer.chrome.com (opens in a new tab).
Why this matters. How a tool finds problems decides which problems it can find. Rules run on markup miss what only a rendered, operated page shows, such as focus order and whether a label means what it says. A tool that repairs pages as they load leaves your own code as it was, and your own code is what an accessibility claim examines.
Better fit: Depends. Lighthouse is a quick score on the page you have open; BearScan reports each failure across the site.
How much of the site it covers
BearScan. A scan without an account covers 10 pages. A free account covers up to 100 pages of one site, and a report up to 1,000. BearScan picks pages by template, one of each distinct kind, rather than by what the address looks like, and the report says how many pages of each kind it evaluated. It reads public pages only and never signs in.
Lighthouse. Lighthouse tests one URL per run, including pages that require login when run from DevTools. Its scoring page lists manual checks such as trapped focus and logical tab order, and says they don't affect the score. The pages we read name no WCAG version. Sources: developer.chrome.com (opens in a new tab), developer.chrome.com (opens in a new tab).
Why this matters. Accessibility problems live in page templates, so a tool that tests one page at a time can miss the template where the problem starts, and a tool that tests a handful of pages can miss most of the site. Check how pages are chosen and how many are included in the price.
Better fit: Depends. Lighthouse can test a page behind a login, which BearScan cannot; BearScan covers the whole public site.
What you get back
BearScan. The free scan lists every issue and the pages it appears on. The report ($49 per site) adds each issue's element, an explanation, the fix, a prompt you can hand to a coding agent and a PDF, with 48 hours of free reruns to verify your fixes. Every report lists what the scan could not check and never says a site is compliant.
Lighthouse. Lighthouse reports a score from 0 to 100 and the audits that failed, as an HTML report by default, or JSON or CSV from the command line. PageSpeed Insights groups scores as 90 or above, 50 to 89 and below 50. Sources: github.com (opens in a new tab), developers.google.com (opens in a new tab).
Why this matters. A list of failures is not a fix. What matters is whether each result names the page and the element, explains the rule it breaks, says how to fix it, and says what the tool could not check, so you know where the gaps are.
Better fit: BearScan. A single number hides what is wrong; an issue list says what to fix.
Whether it changes your site
BearScan. BearScan visits public pages the way a visitor does and reports what it finds. Nothing is installed on your site. To check that forms explain their errors it may submit a simple email-only form once, to its own origin, with an obviously invalid value; it never signs in, signs up, pays or buys anything.
Lighthouse. Lighthouse loads the page in a local copy of Chrome and, per its README, report results are never beaconed to a remote server. Its documentation doesn't describe it altering your site. Sources: github.com (opens in a new tab).
Why this matters. Some products work by adding a script that alters your pages as they load. That can fix some problems for visitors, but it adds a third-party dependency to every page, and it doesn't change the source code your developers maintain.
Better fit: Depends. Both leave your site as it is.
What it costs
BearScan. Scanning is free. A full report is $49 per site, once. Monitoring is $29 a month ($228 a year) per site and adds the full report on every scan, weekly rescans with alerts and pull-request checks. The price doesn't change with your traffic.
Lighthouse. Lighthouse is open source under the Apache-2.0 license and running it locally needs no account. PageSpeed Insights needs no installation. Sources: github.com (opens in a new tab).
Why this matters. Price models differ more than price. Some scale with your traffic, some with the pages monitored, some are quotes you only get after a call. Compare the cost for your site over a year, and what happens to the bill if your traffic doubles.
Better fit: Lighthouse. Free is hard to beat for a quick check of one page.
How it fits your workflow
BearScan. BearScan has a REST API with an OpenAPI spec, an MCP server so coding agents can scan a site and read its findings, and a GitHub App that checks pull requests and scans the preview against the pull request's base commit, commenting only on lines the pull request added. Monitoring rescans weekly and emails you when something new fails. It has no browser extension and no library for unit-testing components.
Lighthouse. Lighthouse CI automates running Lighthouse on every commit to prevent regressions, with a GitHub Actions quick-start and a server with a dashboard. The command-line tool requires Node 22 or later and a Chrome install. Sources: github.com (opens in a new tab), github.com (opens in a new tab).
Why this matters. A finding only helps if it reaches the person who fixes it. Look at whether results go where your team already works: pull requests, tickets, coding assistants, a CI job.
Better fit: Depends. Lighthouse CI is excellent for catching regressions on chosen URLs; BearScan finds pages for you.
What it promises about the law
BearScan. BearScan reports what a scan found and what it couldn't check. It isn't legal advice, doesn't certify compliance, and offers no litigation support, guarantee or indemnity. Each issue links to the standard or law it is based on, so you and your lawyer can review it.
Lighthouse. The Lighthouse pages we read say nothing about legal compliance. The score covers only automated pass-or-fail audits, so a score of 100 is not evidence of conformance. Sources: developer.chrome.com (opens in a new tab).
Why this matters. No tool can certify that a site is ADA compliant, because the ADA doesn't certify websites, and the Justice Department's guidance says a clean automated report doesn't necessarily mean everything is accessible. What differs is what a vendor claims and what it will stand behind in writing.
Better fit: Depends. Neither promises compliance. A high score is not a compliance record.
Pricing in detail
| Plan | Price | What sets the price or what it includes |
|---|---|---|
| Lighthouse | Free | Open source, Apache-2.0; PageSpeed Insights needs no install |
Source: github.com (opens in a new tab), read 2026-10-11.
| Plan | Price | What it includes |
|---|---|---|
| Free scan | $0 | 10 pages without an account; up to 100 pages of one site with a free account; every issue and the pages it’s on |
| Full report | $49 per site, once | Up to 1,000 pages; each issue’s element, explanation, fix and coding-agent prompt; a PDF; 48 hours of free reruns |
| Monitoring | $29 a month or $228 a year, per site | The full report on every scan, weekly rescans with alerts, pull-request checks |
Strengths and gaps
Where Lighthouse is stronger than BearScan
- It's built into Chrome, so there is nothing to install or sign up for.
- It tests pages behind a login when run from DevTools.
- Lighthouse CI catches regressions on every commit.
Where BearScan is stronger than Lighthouse
- You need the whole site, not one page at a time.
- You need the checks Lighthouse leaves out of its score, such as keyboard operation and focus.
- You want issues, not a number.
Where BearScan falls short
- It has no manual expert audits, VPATs or accessibility training.
- It reads public pages only, so it can't test anything behind a login.
- It has no browser extension or in-test library for checking a component while you build it.
- It offers no litigation support, financial protection or guarantee.
- It scans websites, not mobile apps.
Our verdict: BearScan or Lighthouse
Use Lighthouse for a fast, free look at one page and to guard key pages in CI. Use BearScan when you need to know what is wrong across the whole site and how to fix it. A good Lighthouse score doesn't mean a page is accessible: manual checks are left out of it.
Whichever you pick, no automated tool can certify that a site is ADA compliant. The Justice Department’s guidance (opens in a new tab) says a “clean” report doesn’t necessarily mean everything is accessible, and our WCAG criteria pages say which criteria need a person.
Check your own site
The quickest way to compare is to see your own results. The scan is free and takes about a minute.
Other comparisons
- BearScan vs accessiBe
- BearScan vs UserWay
- BearScan vs AudioEye
- BearScan vs axe DevTools
- BearScan vs WAVE
- The best ADA and WCAG scanners
- All comparisons
Sources are listed beside each claim. Lighthouse’s own site: developer.chrome.com (opens in a new tab).
Questions
Is BearScan an alternative to Lighthouse?
For finding accessibility problems, yes. Lighthouse is a free checker: Google's free auditing tool, built into Chrome DevTools, whose accessibility section scores a page from 0 to 100. BearScan is a scanner that reports each issue with the page, the element, the fix and the rule it breaks, and never claims a site is compliant.
How much does BearScan cost compared with Lighthouse?
Scanning is free: 10 pages without an account, up to 100 pages of one site with a free account. A full report is $49 per site and Monitoring is $29 a month per site. Lighthouse: Free and open source (Apache-2.0).
Does BearScan change my website like Lighthouse can?
No. BearScan only reads your public pages and reports what it finds. Lighthouse: No: it loads the page in a local Chrome.
Is Lighthouse enough to check accessibility?
It is a good start for one page. Its score covers only automated pass-or-fail audits, and manual checks such as focus traps and tab order are listed but don't affect the score.
Does a Lighthouse accessibility score of 100 mean a site is compliant?
No. The score is a weighted average of automated audits, and Lighthouse's documentation makes no claim about legal compliance or WCAG conformance.
Can Lighthouse scan a whole site?
It audits one URL per run. Lighthouse CI runs it for every commit on the URLs you choose; the pages we read don't describe finding pages for you.
Can Lighthouse test pages behind a login?
Yes, from Chrome DevTools or from the command line against a logged-in browser. The browser extension cannot.