When it comes to accessibility testing, the JAWS vs NVDA debate can shape the outcome of your audit. These two screen readers offer different strengths, and understanding them is key to making the right choice.
The screen reader you use in an accessibility audit directly affects what you find, how you interpret it, and how development teams act on your recommendations.
Among the most widely used screen readers are JAWS (Job Access With Speech) and NVDA (NonVisual Desktop Access). Both tools share the common goal of enhancing digital accessibility. But, when considering which screen reader is better for accessibility audits, it greatly depends on what you’re testing for, whether usability, technical compliance, or both.
This article provides a comprehensive comparison of JAWS and NVDA, focusing on their key differences in the context of accessibility audits, including cost, functionality, usability, compatibility, and their implications for testing.
Overview of JAWS and NVDA
Developed by Freedom Scientific, JAWS is a commercial screen reader for Windows, first released in 1995. Many professionals regard JAWS as the ‘gold standard’ in screen-reading software, particularly for enterprise use. Users value JAWS for its robust features, extensive customization options, and compatibility with a wide range of applications. These applications include complex workflows in Microsoft Office and professional software. However, its high cost and steep learning curve can be barriers for some users.
NVDA, developed by NV Access, is a free, open-source screen reader for Windows, introduced in 2006. It has gained significant popularity due to its cost-free model, frequent updates, and robust performance. NVDA supports a wide range of applications and is highly customizable through add-ons, making it a viable alternative to JAWS. Its simplicity and accessibility make it particularly appealing for new users and organizations with budget constraints.
JAWS vs NVDA: Key Differences for Accessibility Audits
When considering which screen reader to choose, you must take several factors into account. Let’s compare JAWS and NVDA across the areas that matter most during an audit: cost, usability, feature depth, and compatibility.
Cost and Accessibility
Cost is one of the most immediate differences between JAWS and NVDA, especially when selecting tools for accessibility audits.
JAWS is a paid software with licensing costs that vary depending on the edition. Single-user licenses range from $90 to $1,475 per year, with a 90-day timed license costing approximately $290. Professional editions, which are often required for enterprise-level audits, can cost up to $1,200.
This cost can be a barrier for individual testers, small organizations, or those conducting audits on a limited budget. However, JAWS’s cost is often justified by its professional support, training resources, and advanced features tailored for enterprise environments.
NVDA, on the other hand, is completely free, supported by donations and grants. This makes it an attractive option for accessibility testers, especially those in educational institutions, non-profits, or freelance roles.
NVDA’s open-source nature also allows for community-driven development and frequent updates, ensuring it remains current with evolving accessibility standards. Its portability, allowing installation on a USB drive for use across multiple Windows PCs, further enhances its accessibility for testers working in varied environments.
Implications for Audits: For audits where flexibility, speed, and budget are key constraints, NVDA is often the more accessible choice. Besides, it remains the most widely used screen reader according to a 2024 WebAIM survey (65.6% of users, compared to 60.5% for JAWS). However, some accessibility auditors may favor JAWS, especially in professional settings with high-end enterprise clients or stakeholders.
Functionality and Features
JAWS and NVDA both offer the core functionalities expected of modern screen readers: content navigation, ARIA support, and compatibility with refreshable braille displays. But they differ significantly in how they navigate and announce content, particularly in ways that may affect audit outcomes.
💡Learn: How To Optimize Screen Readers’ Accessibility On Your Website
JAWS
JAWS stands out for its “Browse Mode,” which transforms the page into a navigable, linear environment. This allows users/testers to jump by headings, landmarks, and form fields using intuitive keystrokes. This structured mode makes it easier to move quickly through complex pages and assess logical flow.
However, JAWS also applies heuristics to improve usability. For example, if a form input lacks a proper label, it might infer one from nearby text. While this benefits end users, it can mask critical WCAG failures. Auditors relying solely on JAWS risk overlooking issues like unlabeled controls, vague ARIA roles, or semantic gaps, because the screen reader compensates for what’s missing in the code.
NVDA
One key advantage is how NVDA handles ARIA roles. It reads what’s in the DOM and accessibility tree without assuming what’s missing. If a role is incorrect or absent, NVDA will reflect that directly in its output. This makes it more effective at exposing structural problems, such as missing alt text, improper heading hierarchies, and misused ARIA attributes.
Also, its built-in Speech Viewer allows testers to see exactly what is being announced, which is especially useful for documentation and developer handoff. NVDA also benefits from a flexible add-on ecosystem, offering tools that expand testing capacity without complicating the core experience.
In audits where code accuracy and WCAG compliance take priority, NVDA tends to offer clearer visibility into what the code is actually doing. However, JAWS’s broader feature set and sophisticated heuristics remain valuable for testing user experience and for identifying how forgiving assistive technologies might compensate for poor markup.
Implications for Audits: In the context of NVDA vs JAWS for WCAG testing, NVDA’s stricter fidelity to markup often makes it a more precise choice for flagging WCAG failures. However, JAWS’s Browse Mode and advanced heuristics remain valuable for testing user experience beyond strict WCAG conformance.
Usability and Learning Curve
How easy a screen reader is to learn and operate can directly affect the efficiency and accuracy of an audit, especially when the tester isn’t a daily assistive technology user.
JAWS is undeniably powerful, but its depth comes at the cost of a steep learning curve. It uses different command sets for desktop and laptop keyboard layouts, with multiple configuration options and navigation modes. For testers new to screen readers, this can slow onboarding and introduce unnecessary friction into the audit process.
That said, this initial investment often pays off for long-term audit teams, especially in enterprise settings. JAWS provides structured training, detailed documentation, and responsive vendor support. Its tight integration with Microsoft Office and legacy systems also makes it a reliable choice in environments where consistency and compatibility are non-negotiable.
In contrast, NVDA offers a more intuitive experience out of the box. Its keyboard shortcuts are consistent across devices, and its user interface is less cluttered. Features like the keyboard help mode (NVDA + 1) and detailed user guides make it approachable for testers new to screen readers or those conducting quick-turnaround audits. Also, because it’s open-source, NVDA’s learning resources, like guides, tutorials, and add-ons, are freely available and regularly updated.
Implications for Audits: For those learning how to test websites with screen readers, NVDA provides a gentler entry point without compromising audit quality. JAWS, on the other hand, demands a steeper but deeper learning curve. However, it may be a better fit in environments where screen reader expertise is a core team competency.
Compatibility and Browser Support
JAWS was traditionally optimized for Microsoft’s ecosystem, performing best with Internet Explorer, and, more recently, Microsoft Edge. While it supports Chrome and Firefox, its strongest integration still lies within Microsoft-based workflows.
JAWS also works well with legacy desktop applications and complex enterprise systems, especially those that weren’t built with accessibility in mind. It also offers workarounds like OCR (Optical Character Recognition) capabilities for inaccessible PDFs or non-semantic interfaces. These features make it valuable in audits involving older infrastructure, document-heavy systems, or internal platforms with inconsistent markup.
NVDA performs best in modern browsers like Chrome and Firefox, both of which offer solid accessibility API support. Because it relies heavily on platform accessibility trees and current web standards, NVDA often reflects the intended behavior of modern codebases from a screen reader perspective, without compensation or smoothing over poor markup. However, it may struggle with older applications that lack proper ARIA implementation or fail to expose accessibility information through expected platform APIs.
Implication for Audits: If you’re auditing modern, standards-based websites, NVDA’s compatibility with Chrome and Firefox makes it a natural fit. But if you’re testing legacy systems, internal platforms, or enterprise software with nonstandard code, JAWS is often the better choice. However, as always, choose your screen reader based on the platforms and browsers your users actually rely on, not just on general recommendations.
Braille Support
If we compare JAWS and NVDA functionality in braille testing, both support a wide range of devices. However, JAWS offers more advanced customization options, like how it segments and labels content. This makes it very helpful when auditing structured data such as tables or nested layouts.
NVDA also supports most braille displays via USB and handles over 50 languages through its synthesizer. For general auditing purposes, its braille functionality performs on par with JAWS. Its implementation is reliable, and for most general auditing tasks involving braille output, it performs on par with JAWS. Thanks to its open-source nature, NVDA often benefits from quick community-led updates and add-ons that extend its braille capabilities.
Implication for Audits: In audits where specific braille configurations are being tested, such as label consistency or data presentation, JAWS may offer a slight edge due to its configurability. But for most use cases, NVDA’s braille functionality is more than sufficient and performs reliably across devices.
Interaction Modes and Navigation Behaviour
Interaction modes shape how screen readers process and navigate content, and they can significantly influence what issues show up in an audit. JAWS relies on Browse Mode to create a structured reading order across the page. This allows you to jump quickly between headings, regions, and form fields using shortcut keys like “H” or “T.”
When users focus on input fields, JAWS automatically switches into Forms Mode. While this transition is smooth, it can conceal markup errors. For example, JAWS may announce a form label even when one isn’t correctly coded, because it’s pulling from nearby context or applying heuristics.
NVDA takes a slightly different approach. Its default mode, called Screen Layout, reads content as it appears visually. This helps auditors understand how layout decisions affect reading flow. By disabling Screen Layout, you can navigate the DOM linearly, which often highlights improper heading structures, poorly grouped elements, and redundant labels.
NVDA’s Focus Mode—similar to JAWS’s Forms Mode—only activates when elements are properly marked up. This also reveals how NVDA handles ARIA roles with stricter interpretation:if the markup isn’t coded properly, NVDA simply won’t announce it.
Implication for Audits: The behavior exposed in an accessibility audit using NVDA or JAWS can vary dramatically. Using both paints a more complete picture. NVDA’s precision is highly valuable for WCAG-focused audits. JAWS, however, excels at exposing how real users might experience the website’s interface, especially when it relies on dynamic behaviors.
Community and Support
JAWS and NVDA differ not just in how they work, but in how you learn, troubleshoot, and scale your skills around them. JAWS is backed by Freedom Scientific and offers structured, enterprise-level support. If you’re auditing in a regulated environment where accountability, documentation, and vendor-backed training matter, that formal support system can be a major asset.
NVDA, by contrast, thrives on community. Maintained by NV Access and supported by a global network of contributors, it offers free training materials, extensive documentation, and a robust library of add-ons. You may not get a dedicated support line, but you will get quick updates, practical fixes, and ongoing contributions that reflect how real testers use the tool.
Implication for Audits: When conducting an accessibility audit using NVDA or JAWS, the support level and flexibility you need can influence which screen reader fits best. If you’re working independently or in a fast-moving audit environment, NVDA’s open ecosystem gives you more flexibility. But if your audits require formal traceable support or client-driven tooling expectations, JAWS may offer more structured resources.
JAWS vs NVDA: Which Should You Use for Your Next Accessibility Audit?
Knowing how to test websites with screen readers goes beyond just choosing a tool. It involves understanding how different screen readers interpret the same code, especially if your are aiming to get your accessibility audit done right.
Both JAWS and NVDA serve distinct purposes, and the best approach often involves using them together. That said, here’s how to decide what to prioritize based on your audit goals:
For WCAG conformance testing:
If you’re running a compliance-focused audit with the hopes of optimizing for screen reader accessibility, the NVDA vs JAWS for WCAG testing debate often leans in favor of NVDA. Its strict reliance on accessibility APIs and the DOM means it doesn’t smooth over poor markup. If a label is missing or an ARIA role is misused, NVDA is more likely to expose it. Plus, its open-source nature and ease of use also make it widely accessible to audit teams of all sizes.
For evaluating user experience:
Subjectively speaking, JAWS offers a better lens into how real users might navigate a site—especially when the code isn’t perfect. Its Browse Mode and built-in heuristics provide insight into how well content functions for users, even when markup falls short. This makes it ideal for testing complex interfaces or enterprise applications where usability matters as much as technical compliance.
For budget-conscious teams:
NVDA is free, lightweight, and portable, which makes it ideal for freelancers, small teams, and nonprofits. JAWS, while costly, may still be required in enterprise audits where clients expect testing with the industry-standard screen reader or where advanced scripting and support are needed.
Tester experience level:
For developers performing accessibility testing, NVDA is often considered the best choice. If you’ve ever Googled “what screen reader is best for developers,” chances are you’ve landed on NVDA because of its precision and transparency in reading code-level structure.
It also has an easier learning curve and is well-supported by community-driven training resources. JAWS requires more time and practice for less experienced accessibility auditors. But for experienced testers, it offers deeper customization and broader system integration which is especially useful in long-term or large-scale audits.
JAWS vs NVDA: Which Should You Choose?
JAWS and NVDA each bring distinct value to the accessibility auditing process. Their differences offer complementary perspectives: one grounded in usability, the other in strict semantic interpretation. So, rather than asking which screen reader is better for accessibility audits, the real question is, ‘what matters most in your testing context‘? It’s helpful to see their differences not as limitations, but as complementary features.
As such, where possible, conduct screen reader testing with both. NVDA and JAWS reveal different types of issues, and together they provide a more complete view of your site’s accessibility. If you’re limited to one, NVDA is often the better choice for standards-based audits. JAWS, however, remains invaluable for usability testing and enterprise environments where assistive technology behavior is critical.
Whichever tool you use, don’t stop at screen reader testing. Combine it with automated accessibility checkers like Equally AI or WAVE, and reinforce your findings with manual code reviews. Equally AI can help automate the discovery of accessibility issues, provide real-time monitoring, and generate actionable reports that support manual audits.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between JAWS and NVDA?
JAWS is a paid, enterprise-grade screen reader with advanced features, vendor support, and strong integration with Microsoft applications. NVDA, on the other hand, is a free, open-source alternative known for its accuracy, simplicity, and alignment with modern web standards. The key difference lies in how they interpret web content: JAWS may apply heuristics to “guess” missing elements, while NVDA reads only what’s in the code.
Is NVDA better than JAWS for web accessibility audits?
It depends on the type of audit. NVDA is often better for WCAG compliance testing because it exposes raw code issues without smoothing over missing labels or structure. However, JAWS is better for simulating real user experience, especially in enterprise environments where assistive tech needs to work with imperfect markup or legacy systems.
Why do accessibility testers prefer NVDA?
Testers often prefer NVDA for its precision and transparency. It strictly follows the accessibility tree and doesn’t compensate for developer errors, making it easier to detect semantic issues. It’s also free, easy to use, and well-supported by the accessibility community, which makes it ideal for teams on tight budgets or working across multiple environments.
Can JAWS miss accessibility issues?
Yes. JAWS can sometimes mask accessibility issues because it uses heuristics to interpret missing or incorrect elements. For example, it may infer labels for form fields even when none exist in the code. While that improves usability for real users, it can cause auditors to overlook WCAG violations that other tools like NVDA would expose.
Could you elaborate on why jaws is better for braille? I currently have a home annual jaws subscription, and I’m not noticing much in terms of better braille support with HIMS QBraille Xl. All I noticed was that some things were displayed differently, but I couldn’t say that JAWS was massively better, but as I prefer braille to speech, and use it extensively, what am I missing that you find useful? Trying to determine if I should renew my JAWS subscription when it comes up in a few months. My previous braille display was far better with JAWS, purely because HumanWare didn’t bother assigning any commands to control the computer directly from the braille display. But since the Qbraille has an actual keyboard connection to go with the usual braille connection, I no longer have that problem. So what has jaws got that NVDA doesn’t that someone primarily using braille might want? Thanks for your thoughts.