Alfa

Alfa is a free, open-source accessibility testing engine for websites built with HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. It suits developers who want WCAG checks woven into their own code and test workflows. Its standards-based rules and structured reports are useful; the main trade-off is that most integrations are experimental.

Overview

Alfa evaluates web content against accessibility standards, including WCAG 2.2. Its default rules follow the ACT Rules Format, and developers can add custom rules or filter results by conformance level and WCAG version. That makes it a flexible option for engineering teams that want to shape checks around a project. Teams seeking a standalone audit interface should look elsewhere: Alfa is built as a testing engine and developer toolkit.

Reports use the Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) Schema encoded as JSON-LD, giving teams structured output for workflows that consume audit data. Alfa is distributed as separate npm packages under the MIT license. The project also says code that can affect test results resides within Alfa itself, a useful property for teams reviewing the provenance of their checks.

Key features

• Page and site audits: The command-line interface audits a single page and saves results as JSON. A scraper fetches a page representation for evaluation, while a crawler discovers and scrapes linked pages across a site or subdomain. The CLI is suited to focused checks; crawling extends the approach across more of a website.
• Customizable rules: Alfa includes WCAG-based rules and accepts pluggable implementations in the ACT Rules Format. Teams can add their own rules and filter findings by conformance level or WCAG version, which helps tailor checks to project requirements without being limited to the default set.
• Developer integrations: Packages cover frameworks and tools including Angular, React, Vue, Cypress, Jest, Playwright, Puppeteer, Selenium, and WebdriverIO. This range can bring checks closer to existing development workflows, but most integrations are experimental and subject to change, so teams should be prepared to manage that instability.
• Automated and CI/CD checks: Alfa supports automated scans and CI/CD integration, making it a fit for teams that want accessibility checks in development pipelines. Its outputs and rules are designed for integration into software workflows, rather than a separate audit product.

Pricing

Alfa is free: its sole plan costs nothing. The plan is open source under the MIT license and distributed as separate npm packages. There are no paid tiers to compare, and the plan facts state no seat or scan quota. The practical cost is in adopting and maintaining the tooling, particularly if a team relies on experimental integrations.

Platforms

Alfa is listed for API, Linux, macOS, self-hosted use, web, and Windows. It runs in ECMAScript 2022-compatible JavaScript environments, including recent versions of Node.js, Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. Building it from source requires Node.js 20 or later and Yarn. Older environments may be targetable from source, but the project does not explicitly support them, so teams with legacy runtimes should account for compatibility work.

Who it's for

Alfa is best suited to developers and engineering teams that need standards-based accessibility checks inside an existing JavaScript, browser-testing, or CI/CD workflow. Its open rule format, custom rules, and machine-readable reports are particularly useful when a team wants control over how checks run and how findings are consumed. It is a weaker fit for users who want a polished, standalone audit interface or dependable integrations without experimental status.

Pros and cons

• Pros: Free and MIT-licensed. Teams can use and adapt the packages without a subscription tier.
• Pros: Flexible rules and filters. Custom rules and conformance filters support checks tailored to a codebase and WCAG target.
• Pros: Structured reporting. EARL in JSON-LD and JSON output from the CLI are suited to workflows that process results programmatically.
• Cons: Most integrations are experimental. Teams depending on a particular framework or test runner may need to accommodate changes.
• Cons: Current JavaScript tooling is required for source builds. Building requires Node.js 20 or later and Yarn, while older environments lack explicit project support.

Alternatives

For a different kind of software, FileManagerTUI is a free, open-source terminal file manager for Linux, macOS, and Windows, with an MIT-licensed plan. Newt is another free, open-source terminal file manager for those three desktop platforms. nnn is a free, open-source terminal file manager that also supports Android. Rat Commander is a free, self-contained terminal file manager for Linux, macOS, and Windows, with no paid tiers or usage limits stated. Broot is a free, MIT-licensed terminal file manager with source and precompiled binaries for Linux, macOS, and Windows. Clifm is a free terminal file manager for Linux, macOS, and Android, released under GPL version 2 or later. elio is a free terminal file manager for Linux, Windows, and self-hosted use. pointer is a free terminal file manager for Linux and macOS, distributed as a single binary under the Unlicense.

Verdict

Choose Alfa if your team wants a free, adaptable way to run WCAG checks within its JavaScript and CI/CD workflows, with structured results and control over rules. Its strongest reason to choose is the combination of open standards, customizable checks, and developer integrations. Look elsewhere if you need a standalone audit interface or require integrations with a stable, non-experimental status.