Accessibility Metatesting: Comparing Nine Testing Tools
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Automated web accessibility testing tools have been found complementary. The implication: To catch as many issues as possible, use multiple tools. Doing this efficiently entails integration costs. Is there a small set of tools that, together, make additional tools redundant? I approach this problem by comparing nine comprehensive accessibility testing tools that are amenable to integration: alfa, axe-core, Continuum, Equal Access, HTML CodeSniffer, Nu Html Checker, QualWeb, Tenon, and WAVE. I tested 121 web pages of interest to CVS Health with these tools. Each tool only fractionally duplicated any other tool. Each discovered numerous issue instances missed by all the others. Thus, testing with all nine tools was substantially more informative than testing with any subset.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 15 Apr 2023.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
- 2026Flow-A11y: Flow-Aware Accessibility Testingcited by 0
- 2026Flow-A11y: Flow-Aware Accessibility Testing3 Jul 2026