Skip to content
Inclusify

Accessibility tools, side by side

accessiBe, UserWay, AudioEye and EqualWeb, compared with Inclusify on what each vendor documents publicly. Every row carries its source and the date it was checked.

Published by Inclusify, one of the tools compared. Every table carries the page each verdict was read from. Last checked August 2026.

Start for free

The comparisons.

One page per vendor: which product fits which situation, a sourced table, then what we do not do.

Which comparison should you read?

Four pages, one per vendor, each a table with a source and a check date on every row. Pick the situation closest to yours.

  • Inclusify vs accessiBe

    You already run accessiBe, you want corrections applied in the visitor's browser, or the FTC order came up in a meeting

    The overlay with the largest public record behind it. What the order actually says, and what a correction applied at page load does and does not survive.

  • Inclusify vs UserWay

    You already run UserWay, or Level Access is in the procurement conversation

    A widget backed by an audit and VPAT practice, plus authenticated scanning and a merge gate in CI, against a published rescan cadence and retention window.

  • Inclusify vs AudioEye

    Somebody has quoted you for managed remediation with a legal assurance

    Certified experts writing custom fixes, and no published price, against a price you can read and findings your developers can query.

  • Inclusify vs EqualWeb

    You need thousands of pages covered, or widget languages we may not ship

    Plans sized by page count up to 100,000 and coverage above 100 languages, against a 100-page ceiling and 71 locales.

If all you want is the widget, every page in the set covers that comparison. All 35 Inclusify adjustments and all six profiles run on the free plan, with no card and no time limit.

What automated testing reaches, and what it does not

These shares are percentages of WCAG success criteria, not percentages of the issues on your page. The two get quoted as if they were the same number and they are not. Six evaluation tools benchmarked against WCAG 2.0 covered between 23% and 50% of the success criteria, and one criterion in two was not analysed by any tool at all.

  1. A tool decides

    23%

    of WCAG success criteria

    Criteria a scanner can pass or fail on its own, such as contrast ratios, missing alt attributes, unlabeled form controls and duplicate ids. 23% is the conservative end of the 23% to 50% range measured across the six tools.

  2. A tool points, a person decides

    27%

    of WCAG success criteria

    Criteria a tool reaches for some of the ways they can fail but not all, so it narrows the page down to candidates and a person makes the call. This is the rest of the covered half, up to the 50% ceiling the same benchmark measured.

  3. Only a person can judge

    50%

    of WCAG success criteria

    Criteria no tool analysed at all: whether alt text describes the image, whether focus order follows the visual order, whether an error message can be understood, whether a custom component behaves under a screen reader.

Including Inclusify

This is a limit of automated testing, not a gap in one vendor's product, and Inclusify sits inside it with everyone else. Our scanner runs axe-core in a real browser and it reaches the same kind of criteria the benchmark describes, which means the larger half of this chart is still work for a person and still needs changes in your code. We detect, report and track. Anything sold as covering the rest on its own is describing a product that does not exist yet.

Where these figures come from

Not all the same shape.

These tools answer the same search, not the same job. Where one acts decides what it can and cannot fix.

  • Widgets and overlays

    Acts on
    The visitor's browser, on top of the page your server already sent.
    Changes
    What that visitor sees and hears: text size and spacing, contrast, color filters, motion, reading aids and text to speech.
    Cannot do
    It cannot change the markup your developers ship, so the underlying page is unchanged for everyone who never opens it, and that is as true of Inclusify's widget as of any other.

  • Enterprise platforms

    Acts on
    Your roadmap, through audit hours, remediation help and an account team.
    Changes
    Which findings get prioritized and fixed, with people attached to the software rather than software alone.
    Cannot do
    The work is bounded by the hours in the contract, so coverage stops where the retainer stops.

  • Testing and monitoring platforms

    Acts on
    Your pages, crawled and tested on a schedule from outside the site.
    Changes
    Nothing on the site itself. It produces the list your developers work through.
    Cannot do
    It reports rather than repairs, so nothing improves for a visitor until someone ships the change.

  • Platform-native apps

    Acts on
    Your store, installed from the platform's own marketplace and billed through it.
    Changes
    Whatever the platform lets an app change, usually a theme embed and settings in the admin.
    Cannot do
    It is scoped to the one platform it is sold on, so it does not follow you to a site that marketplace does not cover.

How this comparison is built

Verdicts are read from the vendor's own public pages, and the URL and date sit in the content file behind each row. "Not documented publicly" is a claim about that documentation and not about the product: the capability is not described on the pages we read, which is not the same as it not existing. If a row is wrong about your product, tell us through /contact and it gets corrected.

Four rules. Every verdict comes from the other vendor's own documentation. A capability we cannot find documented is marked "Not documented publicly", never crossed out. Every page names what the other product does better. Anything Inclusify has not shipped stays out of our column. Inclusify is one of the tools here, which is why the rules are written down.

How to compare tools in this category

Automated rules are good at the mechanical failures: color contrast, missing alt attributes, unlabeled form controls, broken heading order, duplicate ids. They catch a meaningful but partial share of WCAG 2.1 AA. Whether alt text actually describes the image, whether focus order follows the visual order, whether an error message can be understood, whether a custom component behaves under a screen reader: those need a person. A vendor that tells you where the line is has told you something useful about the rest of their claims.

A widget gives a visitor presentation controls: larger text, higher contrast, reduced motion, a reading aid, text to speech. For the people who use those controls it is a real improvement, and it is worth having. It does not rewrite your markup for everyone else, and assistive technology users largely arrive with their own tooling already configured. Treat automatic repair of the underlying page as a claim to check rather than a feature to assume.

A site changes every week and an audit is out of date the next time someone ships. Ask how often pages are re-tested, whether the tool tells you what is new since the last run rather than only a score, whether an alert reaches a human, and how many pages are included before the price changes.

If a demand letter arrives, the useful artifact is a dated record: which pages were tested, against which standard, what was found, what was fixed and when. A dashboard screenshot is not that. Ask what the export looks like, how far back the history goes, and whether the methodology is stated in the document itself.

Accessibility work gets done when it lands where the work already happens. A finding that becomes a Jira ticket, a regression that shows up in Slack, a check that runs before a release, a store that installs from its own app marketplace. A tool that lives only in its own dashboard tends to get read once.

Choosing between them.

Still weighing it up? Talk to us.

An overlay is JavaScript added to a site that layers accessibility features on top of the page a visitor loads. In practice it means two different things. The first is a visitor-facing widget: a button that opens controls for text size, contrast, color filters, reduced motion, reading aids and text to speech. The second is automatic remediation, where the script tries to correct the underlying markup in the browser, for example by generating alt text or adding ARIA attributes. The first is well understood and uncontroversial. The second is where most of the argument in this category lives.

No, and no honest vendor in this category should tell you otherwise. Accessibility is a property of the site itself, and no script added on top of it can deliver that on its own, ours included. Automated testing finds a meaningful but partial share of WCAG 2.1 AA failures, mostly the mechanical ones such as contrast, missing alt attributes, unlabeled controls and heading structure. The remainder needs human review and real changes in the code: whether alt text describes the image, whether focus order makes sense, whether a custom component works under a screen reader, whether an error message is understandable. This is not a theoretical concern. In January 2025 the Federal Trade Commission brought an action against accessiBe over claims about its automated product, and the final order approved in April 2025 required a $1 million payment. The record is public and linked below. It is also why Inclusify describes what it does in plain terms: it detects, reports and tracks issues, and the fixes still have to be made in the site.

An overlay runs on your visitors' browsers and changes what they experience. A scanner runs against your pages and tells you what is wrong with them. They solve different halves of the problem: the widget helps the person on the site today, the scanner produces the list your developers work through. Some vendors sell one, some sell both. If you buy only a widget, nothing is ever telling you what to fix. If you buy only a scanner, nothing is helping the visitor who needs bigger text right now.

Five things, in this order. What the tool tests automatically and what it says needs a person. Whether pages are re-tested on a schedule or only when you remember. Whether you are told what changed since the last run, not just a score. What the exported report contains and how far its history goes. And whether findings reach your team where they already work, through Jira, Slack, a Shopify app or your release process. Price matters, but the page allowance behind the price usually matters more.

Yes, for what it actually is. Visitors do use larger text, higher contrast, color filters, reduced motion and reading aids, and those controls cost you nothing to offer and help people who would otherwise struggle. What a widget is not is a substitute for accessible markup, and buying one does not mean the underlying work is done. The reasonable position is to run a widget and fix the site, and to be suspicious of anyone selling the first as a replacement for the second.

Check it rather than trust it, which is what the method is for. Every verdict comes from the other vendor's own published documentation, with the URL and the date recorded behind the page, so any row can be looked up in a minute. A capability we cannot find documented is marked "Not documented publicly" rather than crossed out. Every page states what the other product does better than ours, and anything Inclusify has not shipped stays out of our column. If a row is wrong, tell us through /contact and it gets corrected.

Make your website accessible today.

Accessibility opens your site to millions more customers - and protects your business while you do it.

Start for freeor scan your site free first