Compare with the tools developers try first
We use axe-core ourselves — here is an honest view of what axe DevTools, WAVE and Lighthouse do better than us, and what we add on top.
This is a comparison against developer tools many people try first. It is not a full analysis of larger enterprise platforms such as Siteimprove, Axe Monitor or similar monitoring solutions.
| Test | axe DevTools | WAVE | Lighthouse | WCAGvakt |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Established machine rules against the code | Yes | Yes, own engine | Yes, built on axe-core | Yes, axe-core |
| Whole website in one run, not one page at a time | No, Axe Monitor is a separate product | No, one page at a time | No, one URL | Yes |
| Keyboard test that runs by itself, without a person doing it | Partial, guided manual test | No | No | Yes, all plans |
| Keeps running by itself after you close the tab | No | No | No | Yes, from Standard |
| Notifies you when the status gets worse | No | No | No | Yes, from Standard |
| Accessibility statement (Norwegian format) filled in from the findings. | No | No | No | Yes, all plans |
| WCAG 2.1 AA as the frame, with the evidence level shown per finding | No | No | No | Yes, all plans |
| A portal the customer or colleague can sign into themselves | No | No | No | Yes, all plans |
| The report in your name, separate portal per end customer | No | No | No | Agency |
| Price | Free trial, then license | Free | Free | From €0 |
What is the actual difference?
These are good tools, and we do not compete with the engine – we build on it. The difference is not that they test badly. The difference is that they are developer tools for one page at a time, while this is a service that follows a whole website over time and writes the document the regulations ask for.
What runs in our scan
We use axe-core, just like they do. The difference is what runs on top of it, on the same page, in the same scan - and that the engines never count the same violation twice. If two of them find the same thing, that strengthens the evidence instead.
- axe-core – The industry standard for automated rule testing.
- Our own rules and behaviour tests – We tab through the page in a real browser: visible focus, 200 % text, 320 px reflow and target size are measured, not guessed.
- QualWeb (W3C ACT rules) – The official ACT rules run independently and corroborate our findings. Corroborated findings are marked in the report.
- v.Nu (Nu Html Checker) – HTML validation. Catches parser errors such as duplicate ids and unclosed elements - errors the other layers do not see.
- veraPDF (PDF/UA) – PDFs you link to are checked for tagging, language, title and text layer. Reading order and content still need a human.
- Shadow DOM guard – Says so when part of the page is closed to inspection, instead of letting it pass in silence.
This list shows the engines running right now, not a wish list. Every single finding in the report is labelled with the engine that found it. See what each engine can and cannot determine.
What they do better than us
- They are free or nearly free. We are free only for the first test.
- They run locally: nothing leaves your machine.
- They respond while you code, not after a scan. If you are fixing the page in front of you right now, they are faster than us.
- Lighthouse also measures performance and SEO, which we do not do at all.
If you need a tool in daily development, use them. If you need to know that the whole website holds up over time and document it, that is the job we do.
One thing we do not claim
All three run in a real browser against the rendered page. They do that correctly, and we do not pretend otherwise. We have seen comparisons claiming the opposite, and those are wrong.
The rows above were spot-checked against the vendors' own documentation 12 August 2026. Products change – if you find something that is no longer correct, tell us, and we will fix it.