How does our Accessibility Tracker platform fare against the general board?
Quite well. Quite well.
In what may come as no surprise to you, we’ve reviewed the general project management software market and come to the conclusion that our platform that is designed specifically for digital accessibility projects compares favorably to the generalized software products for accessibility projects.
But for those of you keeping score at home, what exactly is the difference here?
Can you make due with nothing but a WCAG audit and an in-house dev team favorite like Jira or Airtable?
We think so. We’ve got nothing against these powerhouses.
But we spent months in the lab and precision lasered Accessibility Tracker to be exactly what is needed for managing accessibility issues. Actual audit report data (not a scan), AI, prioritization formulas, it’s all there; the street knows we’ve got the good stuff.
Anyway, let’s parade some of these mainstream options out and create a comparison of each vs. Tracker.
| Software | General Strengths | Accessibility Project Limitations | Key Difference vs Accessibility Tracker |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accessibility Tracker | Purpose-built for accessibility remediation with AI pre-promoted with audit data, change issue status, and specialized workflows | Focused specifically on accessibility (not general project management) | Built specifically for accessibility work – no setup required |
| Asana | Excellent portfolio oversight, AI-enhanced workflows, workload balancing | Manual audit issue input, custom WCAG field creation, build own prioritization system | Accessibility Tracker uploads audit spreadsheets directly with AI trained on WCAG issues |
| Airtable | Highly customizable database structure, sophisticated tracking potential | Significant setup required, manual accessibility schema design, custom relationship configuration | Pre-configured accessibility workflows with built-in prioritization formulas (lawsuit risk & user impact) |
| Trello | Simple visual boards, quick adoption, minimal learning curve | Limited to basic cards, no WCAG criteria support, no audit data structure, requires multiple Power-Ups | Structured audit data management with full context, applicable code, and AI-powered fix guidance |
| Wrike | Enterprise-grade reporting, excellent resource management for PMOs | Overhead-heavy, weeks of setup required before fixing issues | Works immediately – upload audit, assign issues, start fixing without enterprise setup |
| monday.com | Visual all-in-one workspace, good automation, everything in one place | Build accessibility structure from scratch, no WCAG understanding, no accessibility workflows | AI provides code examples and WCAG explanations; monday.com requires external resources |
| Notion | Excellent for documentation, flexible wiki/project tracking combination | Weak for managing hundreds of technical issues, no built-in validation tracking | Focuses on fixing issues vs documenting policies; includes auditor validation workflows |
| Mach-AI | AI-powered project planning, affordable pricing for lean teams | AI not trained on accessibility, generates generic plans without WCAG understanding | AI pre-prompted with accessibility expertise and specific audit data for targeted guidance |
| Jira | Industry standard for development, deep integration with code repositories | Significant configuration required, “2-3 hours setup… Jira is a skill” | Works out-of-the-box for accessibility – no configuration needed |
| Hive | All-in-one hub with email, proofing, AI assistant “Buzz” for planning | AI lacks accessibility domain knowledge, proofing doesn’t understand WCAG, manual audit structuring | AI knows WCAG thoroughly and provides specific code fixes vs general AI requiring extensive prompting |
Table of Contents
The Fundamental Difference
Accessibility Tracker is purpose-built for one thing: managing accessibility remediation from audit to WCAG conformance. While general project management tools can handle accessibility projects, they require significant setup and lack the specialized features that make remediation efficient.
Platform Comparisons
Asana
Strengths: Excellent for portfolio oversight across multiple projects. AI-enhanced workflows and workload balancing help manage team capacity.
For accessibility projects: You’ll need to manually input all audit issues, create custom fields for WCAG criteria, and build your own prioritization system. No built-in accessibility guidance.
Key difference: Accessibility Tracker uploads your audit spreadsheet directly and includes AI trained specifically on WCAG issues, not general project management.
Airtable
Strengths: Highly customizable database structure. Could build sophisticated accessibility tracking with custom fields and views.
For accessibility projects: Requires significant setup to create accessibility-specific schemas. You’d need to design interfaces for issue tracking and manually configure all relationships.
Key difference: Accessibility Tracker comes pre-configured for accessibility workflows with built-in prioritization formulas (lawsuit risk and user impact) that Airtable would require custom development to replicate.
Trello
Strengths: Simple visual boards perfect for small teams. Quick to adopt with minimal learning curve.
For accessibility projects: Limited to basic card movement. No native support for WCAG criteria, audit data structure, or validation workflows. Would need multiple Power-Ups.
Key difference: Accessibility Tracker provides structured audit data management, not just cards on a board. Each issue contains full audit context, applicable code, and AI-powered fix guidance.
Wrike
Strengths: Enterprise-grade reporting and resource management. Excellent for PMOs managing multiple complex projects.
For accessibility projects: Overhead-heavy for accessibility work. You’d spend weeks setting up custom workflows and dashboards before fixing a single issue.
Key difference: Accessibility Tracker gets you working immediately—upload audit, assign issues, start fixing. No enterprise governance setup required.
monday.com
Strengths: Visual, all-in-one workspace with good automation capabilities. Strong for teams wanting everything in one place.
For accessibility projects: Would need to build accessibility structure from scratch. No understanding of WCAG relationships or accessibility-specific workflows.
Key difference: Accessibility Tracker’s AI provides code examples and WCAG explanations for each issue. Monday.com would require external resources for technical guidance.
Notion
Strengths: Excellent for documentation-heavy teams. Flexible structure combines wiki and project tracking.
For accessibility projects: Could work well for documenting accessibility policies, but weak for managing hundreds of technical issues. No built-in validation tracking.
Key difference: Accessibility Tracker focuses on fixing issues, not documenting policies. Includes validation workflows where auditors confirm fixes directly in the platform.
Mach-AI
Strengths: AI-powered project planning with affordable pricing. Good for lean teams wanting AI assistance.
For accessibility projects: AI isn’t trained on accessibility. Would generate generic project plans without understanding WCAG requirements or remediation patterns.
Key difference: Accessibility Tracker’s AI is pre-prompted with accessibility expertise and your specific audit data. It answers “How do I fix this keyboard trap?” not “What tasks should I create?”
Jira
Strengths: Industry standard for development teams. Deep integration with development workflows and code repositories.
For accessibility projects: Requires significant configuration to handle accessibility issues. As one user noted: “setting it up we require like two to three hours… Jira is a skill.”
Key difference: Accessibility Tracker works out-of-the-box for accessibility. No configuration needed—just upload your audit and start working.
P.S. We’ve got a full Saturday Night Main Event breakdown of Accessibility Tracker vs. Jira.
Hive
Strengths: True all-in-one hub with native email, proofing, and AI assistant “Buzz” for planning. Good for teams managing multiple workflow types.
For accessibility projects: While Buzz AI can generate tasks, it lacks accessibility domain knowledge. The proofing feature could help with visual reviews but doesn’t understand WCAG criteria. You’d still need to manually structure audit data.
Key difference: Accessibility Tracker’s AI knows WCAG inside-out and provides specific code fixes for each issue. Hive’s general AI would require extensive prompting to understand accessibility requirements.
Big Features
None of the general tools include these Accessibility Tracker features:
- Audit-based tracking
- Issue-level AI assistance (project level coming soon)
- Lawsuit risk prioritization based on real complaint data
- User impact scoring for overall impact
- Auditor validation workflow is seamless
- Automatic extraction of audit spreadsheet data
The Bottom Line
General project management tools are excellent for their intended purposes. But for accessibility remediation, they’re like using a Swiss Army knife to perform surgery—technically possible, but not optimal.
If you’re managing multiple project types, these platforms make sense. But if you need to efficiently remediate accessibility issues and reach WCAG conformance, Accessibility Tracker’s specialized features give you a mega head start that returns compounding interest the more digital assets you’re managing.
You can get started with a free plan at AccessibilityTracker.com.
