AccessLint

AccessLint is an accessibility-checking tool for development workflows and live websites. It is best suited to teams using GitHub pull requests that also want daily checks of important user journeys. Its main advantage is guidance across those stages; its main limitation is that findings do not stop a merge or build.

Overview

AccessLint applies a 95-rule, zero-dependency engine covering WCAG 2.2, with a reported median audit time of 53ms across 5,000 real-world sites. Browser-extension checks, pull-request reviews and production monitoring give teams several points at which to spot issues. That breadth can support a repeatable accessibility process, but automated findings are not a compliance determination: AccessLint says no automated tool can make a site compliant on its own.

Key features

Pull-request reviews examine changed files and post inline comments naming the rule and suggesting a fix. This puts actionable feedback near the code under review, but the reviews do not fail builds or block merges. Starter and Pro add deploy-triggered scans, which run asynchronously and likewise do not synchronously hold up a build. Teams that require a hard accessibility gate will need another control.

Saved user journeys are checked daily on live sites, with email alerts for new violations or changes from the baseline. Focusing alerts on changes can make recurring monitoring more useful than repeated notices about unchanged findings. The toolkit also provides checks for Playwright, Vitest and Storybook; pull-request reviews use a GitHub App.

Findings include before-and-after screenshots of affected elements. Starter and Pro provide shareable, read-only evidence reports, which can help teams communicate progress, though the reports should not be mistaken for proof of compliance. Screenshots from routine passing Flow runs are deleted after seven days; screenshots from runs needing attention remain until the customer deletes them.

AccessLint says it does not sell personal information or share it for advertising, and does not ask for or store site passwords. Its privacy policy says traffic uses TLS, sensitive data is encrypted at rest, and Stripe handles payment card numbers without sending them to AccessLint’s servers. Support is available by email when Help does not answer a question.

Pricing

The free plan costs nothing and includes public-repository pull-request reviews, one flow with daily runs and violation trends. It is a practical way to try the workflow, but it limits reviews to public repositories and monitoring to one flow; it does not include the shareable evidence report.

Starter costs $19 a month, billed, or $190 a year (2 months free). It adds private-repository reviews, deploy-triggered scans, a shareable evidence report and one monitored flow with daily runs. This is the clearest fit for a small team that needs private-repository feedback and evidence but can work within a single monitored journey.

Pro costs $349 a month, billed, or $3,490 a year (2 months free). It includes everything in Starter and raises the allowance to 20 monitored flows with daily runs. That increase is useful for teams tracking multiple journeys, but the steep jump from Starter makes it difficult to justify if one flow is enough. The free plan and paid plans are shown alongside a 14-day trial.

Platforms

AccessLint is available across API, browser extension, macOS and web. That range supports both developer workflows and direct browser-based checks, while its pull-request reviews specifically rely on GitHub.

Who it's for

AccessLint suits development teams that want inline guidance on changed code and daily monitoring of selected production journeys, especially when they can act on findings without making them automatic release blockers. It is less suitable for teams whose release process depends on a synchronous accessibility gate, or for anyone seeking an automated compliance certification.

Pros and cons

• Pros: Inline comments identify the rule and suggest a fix, placing feedback in the pull-request workflow.
• Pros: Daily journey monitoring and change-focused email alerts extend checks beyond development.
• Pros: Shareable evidence reports and before-and-after screenshots can help teams review and communicate findings.
• Cons: Pull-request reviews do not block merges, and deploy scans do not synchronously fail builds, so AccessLint cannot enforce a release gate.
• Cons: The free plan is limited to public repositories and one monitored flow; Starter also allows just one flow.
• Cons: Pro costs $349 a month, billed, a substantial step up for teams that need more than one flow.

Alternatives

WAVE is another freemium option with a free plan and API, extension, Linux, macOS, web and Windows platforms; its Subscription API starts at $10 a month for a 250-credit minimum purchase. Axe DevTools offers a free extension for testing one page at a time, making it an option for readers who want a limited, page-by-page starting point. Welcoming Web has a free plan with a core accessibility widget and basic features, plus a Pro plan from $19/m, for readers looking for that kind of widget rather than AccessLint’s pull-request workflow.

A11yInspect provides a free extension plan with unlimited webpage testing and bookmarklets, while Gamyata offers a free tier capped at five pages per month. AllyShield has a free web plan with three scans per month, one page per scan and one domain. Pope Tech has a free tier for 25 pages, two users, one website and one group. GitHub Accessibility Scanner is a free, MIT-licensed GitHub Action that requires GitHub Actions minutes, for readers seeking that alternative.

For broader comparisons, browse Accessibility Testing Software or Website Accessibility Tools.

Verdict

Choose AccessLint if your team wants GitHub pull-request feedback paired with daily monitoring and, on paid plans, shareable evidence reports. Its coverage across development and production is useful, but it is not a merge gate or a compliance guarantee. Teams that must block releases on accessibility findings should look elsewhere or add a separate enforcement mechanism.