Best Tools for Accessibility Testing in 2026

Accessibility testing has two phases: catching issues before they ship (in design) and identifying them after they ship (in production). Different tools cover different phases. Here's what works where.

1. Stark — Best accessibility tool for designers

Stark is a Figma plugin (and a browser extension) built specifically for accessibility. It covers the design-side a11y checks that catch most issues before a single line of code is written.

The contrast checker runs against WCAG 2.1 AA and AAA standards and shows you the pass/fail status directly on your design frames. The vision simulator shows how your design looks under different types of color blindness (deuteranopia, protanopia, tritanopia, and achromatopsia). The focus order tool lets you annotate tab order directly in Figma frames. The alt text panel helps you document accessible labels for images and icons.

For teams that want to shift accessibility left — catching issues in design rather than QA — Stark is the most complete design-phase tool available.

Pricing: Free plan (basic contrast checker). Pro at $79/year (individual). Team plans available. Best for: Designers who want to catch accessibility issues in Figma before handoff.

Try Stark in Figma

2. Figma — Built-in accessibility checks

Figma itself supports several accessibility-focused workflows, especially with the right plugins. Beyond Stark, plugins like A11y Annotation Kit, Include (by eBay), and Able add structure to your annotation workflow.

Figma's dev mode includes color code inspection that developers can use alongside WCAG reference. But the core accessibility value in Figma is the annotation layer — documenting accessibility requirements (roles, labels, states, reading order) directly in the design file so developers have clear spec rather than guessing.

If your team already annotates in Figma, the accessibility annotation step is an addition to an existing habit rather than a new tool or workflow. That makes adoption much more likely.

Pricing: Free plan. Pro at $15/editor/month. Best for: Accessibility annotation as part of the standard design-to-developer handoff.

Try Figma Free

3. Maze — Best for testing accessibility with real users

Maze tests whether your design is actually usable, not just whether it passes automated checks. WCAG compliance is measurable and important, but it's possible to build a product that passes every contrast check and still has confusing navigation, unclear error states, or interaction patterns that don't work for screen reader users.

Maze's unmoderated prototype tests let you measure task completion, time-on-task, and misclick rates on your Figma prototypes. Running these tests with participants who use assistive technology (which you can recruit for in Maze's panel) reveals usability issues that automated checks miss.

Pricing: Free plan (1 study, 5 responses). Pro at $99/month. Best for: Testing whether accessibility improvements actually improve usability in practice.

Try Maze Free

4. Hotjar — Best for live-site accessibility friction

Hotjar shows you where users struggle on your live product. Session recordings catch moments where users abandon a form, get stuck in a tab loop, or repeat the same click multiple times — patterns that suggest accessibility friction even if users don't explicitly report it.

Heatmaps on key pages reveal if certain interactive elements are being missed or avoided. Feedback surveys can ask targeted questions about accessibility experience. None of this is as precise as a structured accessibility audit, but it catches real friction patterns that automated testing doesn't surface.

The key limitation: Hotjar doesn't run accessibility checks. It observes behavior. You're inferring accessibility issues from usage patterns rather than testing against standards. Use it alongside Stark and structured testing, not instead of them.

Pricing: Free plan. Plus at $39/month. Business at $99/month. Best for: Identifying live-site friction patterns that may indicate accessibility barriers.

Try Hotjar Free

The full accessibility testing stack

Design phase: Stark for contrast and vision simulation in Figma. Figma annotation tools for documenting requirements for developers. Pre-ship testing: Maze with participants who use assistive technology. Post-ship monitoring: Hotjar for behavioral friction signals on live pages.

Automated checks (Stark, browser extensions, Lighthouse) catch maybe 30-40% of real accessibility issues. The rest require human testing. Budget for both, and prioritize the design-phase work — fixing a contrast issue in a Figma file takes 30 seconds; fixing it after it's been shipped and built in three different components takes much longer.