WAVE checks one page at a time and overlays icons on it so you can see each problem in place; BearScan checks a whole site and lists every issue with the pages it appears on. WAVE is well regarded for manual review of a single page. Use it alongside a site-wide scan.
Summary
| Question | BearScan | WAVE | Better fit |
|---|---|---|---|
| How it checks your site | Real-browser scan, then models read what text and images mean | Marks problems on the page for a person to review | Depends |
| How much of the site it covers | 10 pages free; 100 with a free account; up to 1,000 in a report | One page per run; site-wide only through the AIM report or a partner | BearScan |
| What you get back | Every issue with its page, element, fix and rule; a PDF; what it couldn't check | Icons on the page; API results; AIM report with expert notes | Depends |
| Whether it changes your site | No: it only reads public pages | No: it evaluates the page and shows icons in your browser | Depends |
| What it costs | Free scan; $49 report per site; $29 a month for Monitoring | No price stated for the tool; API from $10; AIM report from $500 | Depends |
| How it fits your workflow | API, MCP server, GitHub pull-request checks, weekly rescans | API in JSON or XML; stand-alone engine for CI | Depends |
| What it promises about the law | Never claims compliance; no legal protection offered | States that no automated result means a page is accessible or compliant | Depends |
Which should you choose?
| If you want | Choose |
|---|---|
| You want every page of the site checked, grouped by issue. | BearScan |
| You want fix instructions and a PDF, not just a marked-up page. | BearScan |
| You want weekly re-scans that email you when something new fails. | BearScan |
| You want to see each problem marked on the page while you review it by hand. | WAVE |
| You're checking one page and want a quick, in-browser look. | WAVE |
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 WAVE from its own pages, attribute its marketing claims to it, cite every source, and say where WAVE is the better choice. Prices and terms were read on and change often; check the vendor’s page before you buy.
WAVE at a glance
WAVE is a free checker. WebAIM's free evaluation tool, as a web page and browser extensions, that marks problems on a single page.
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.
WAVE. WAVE is WebAIM's evaluation tool. Its extension overlays icons for errors, contrast errors, alerts, features, structure and ARIA on the page you're viewing, and runs entirely in your browser. WebAIM says WAVE has many checks for WCAG 2.2 and Section 508 but that no automated tool can check everything. Sources: wave.webaim.org (opens in a new tab), wave.webaim.org (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. WAVE is built for a person reviewing a page; BearScan is built for a whole-site report.
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.
WAVE. The online tool and the extension check one page at a time, and the API takes one URL per request. For many pages WebAIM points to its AIM report, which scans up to 20,000 pages, or to Pope Tech, a third-party service. Sources: wave.webaim.org (opens in a new tab), wave.webaim.org (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: BearScan. For a whole site in one pass, a crawler saves you checking page by page.
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.
WAVE. The extension shows counts and icons on the page with a reference panel. The API returns JSON or XML in four report types of increasing detail. The paid AIM report adds an automated score, a manual impact score and notes from expert testers on a sample of four pages. Sources: wave.webaim.org (opens in a new tab), wave.webaim.org (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: Depends. WAVE shows the problem in place; BearScan explains the fix and says what it couldn't check.
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.
WAVE. The extension evaluates the rendered page and draws icons over it in your browser. WebAIM's pages don't describe it altering your site, and say no information is sent to WAVE's server by the extension. Sources: wave.webaim.org (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.
WAVE. The WAVE web tool and extension state no price. The API gives 100 free credits to new accounts, then $0.025 to $0.04 per credit with a $10 minimum. The stand-alone API and testing engine are $4,000, $8,000 or $12,000 a year. An AIM report starts at $500 for up to 20,000 pages. Sources: wave.webaim.org (opens in a new tab), wave.webaim.org (opens in a new tab), wave.webaim.org (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: Depends. Check WebAIM's current terms for the web tool and extensions; the paid options are the API, the stand-alone engine and the AIM report.
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.
WAVE. WAVE's API returns JSON or XML. The stand-alone testing engine can be integrated into continuous-integration processes including Selenium and Puppeteer and can analyse internal pages. We didn't find Playwright, Cypress, GitHub Actions or MCP integrations on its pages. Sources: wave.webaim.org (opens in a new tab), wave.webaim.org (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. WAVE's engine can run inside your network; BearScan runs from its own service.
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.
WAVE. WebAIM says WAVE cannot tell you whether content is accessible, that the absence of errors doesn't mean a page is accessible or compliant, and that it offers no approval, certification or badge. Its terms disclaim any warranty and ask for written permission before WAVE output is used for legal action. WebAIM's separate services include human evaluation and an Accessible Website Certification. Sources: wave.webaim.org (opens in a new tab), wave.webaim.org (opens in a new tab), webaim.org (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. Both say plainly that a tool can't certify compliance.
Pricing in detail
| Plan | Price | What sets the price or what it includes |
|---|---|---|
| Web tool and extensions | No price stated | One page at a time |
| Subscription API | 100 free credits, then $0.025 to $0.04 a credit | $10 minimum purchase; 1 to 3 credits a request |
| Stand-alone API and engine | $4,000, $8,000 or $12,000 a year | By requests, domains and installations |
| AIM report | From $500 | Up to 20,000 pages; manual testing of a four-page sample |
Source: wave.webaim.org (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 WAVE is stronger than BearScan
- It shows each problem in place on the page, which helps a person learn what to look for.
- It runs in your browser, so nothing about the page is sent to WebAIM.
- The AIM report adds expert manual testing on a sample.
Where BearScan is stronger than WAVE
- You want every page of the site checked, grouped by issue.
- You want fix instructions and a PDF, not just a marked-up page.
- You want weekly re-scans that email you when something new fails.
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 WAVE
Choose WAVE for a quick look at one page or to learn what a problem looks like in place. Choose BearScan when you need the whole site and a list someone can fix from. Plenty of teams use both: a site scan to find where the problems are, then WAVE to inspect a page.
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 Lighthouse
- The best ADA and WCAG scanners
- All comparisons
Sources are listed beside each claim. WAVE’s own site: wave.webaim.org (opens in a new tab).
Questions
Is BearScan an alternative to WAVE?
For finding accessibility problems, yes. WAVE is a free checker: WebAIM's free evaluation tool, as a web page and browser extensions, that marks problems on a single page. 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 WAVE?
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. WAVE: No price stated for the tool; API from $10; AIM report from $500.
Does BearScan change my website like WAVE can?
No. BearScan only reads your public pages and reports what it finds. WAVE: No: it evaluates the page and shows icons in your browser.
Is WAVE free?
The web tool and browser extensions state no price. The API gives 100 free credits and then charges $0.025 to $0.04 per credit, the stand-alone engine is $4,000 to $12,000 a year, and an AIM report starts at $500.
Is WAVE accurate?
WebAIM publishes no accuracy figure. It says a red icon almost certainly indicates an issue, that WAVE cannot check every guideline, and that the absence of errors doesn't mean a page is accessible.
Does WAVE scan a whole website?
Not by itself. The extension and web tool check one page at a time. For many pages, WebAIM offers the AIM report and points to Pope Tech.
Does WAVE send my page to WebAIM?
The browser extension doesn't: WebAIM says no information is sent to the WAVE server. The web tool and API fetch your page remotely.