I used the PDF found here: http://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/content/support-us/volunteering/pdfs/volunteer-adult-literacy.pdf

- Adobe Acrobat Pro and PAC 2.0 both pointed out similar issues - lack of primary language and title, problems with lists and tables, with nesting and tab order, and most vitally, a lack of tags entirely; PAC 2.0 was much more obvious/direct in its assessment and easier to understand, in my opinion, as it gives you a "grade" directly within the app (before even opening the report), phrases the errors in a more comprehensible (to me) manner, and actually points to them

- After using the Accessibility Action Wizard, I ran the Accessibility Check and PAC2.0 again, and still had some issues with tags and tabbing order (I struggled with the tagging quite a bit...perhaps shouldn't have started off with a multi-page form on my first try), but there were significant improvements - the errors and failures were reduced from 2000-7000+ (depending on the software) to only about 50-100 (once again, with PAC 2.0 producing a much higher number). Some of these, of course, were things to be checked manually.

- Overall, I found it convenient that the Pro version has some of these accessibility features built in, and much of the work can be done directly within the document. I imagine the report feature to be useful in digital accessibility work - it pretty much does part of your job, the nice neat table and grade and all, for you. However, I preferred PAC 2.0 for actually performing the check and detecting errors because its ability to show you exactly where the error is more user-, and certainly novice-, friendly.