Accessibility platform comparison
InclusiveWeb vs AccessiBe
AccessiBe is the best-known overlay widget on the market. In April 2025 the FTC finalised an order: $1 million, plus a ban on claiming that its automated product makes a website WCAG-compliant. Below is what each product actually does, what it costs, and what you are paying for.
Updated: 7 August 2026
Comparison table
| Criterion | InclusiveWeb | AccessiBe |
|---|---|---|
| Product line | Audit, adaptation panel, manual testing; autofix in beta | accessWidget (overlay), accessScan, accessFlow, accessServices |
| WCAG checking | 90+ automated WCAG 2.1/2.2 AA rules, report cites the criterion | accessScan — free scan by URL |
| Screen readers | The report flags issues that affect screen readers: alt text, ARIA, names, focus order | Changes apply in the browser; results depend on the browser + AT pairing |
| Starting price | $29/mo panel, $49/mo audit — site up to 50 pages | $490/year (Micro) — up to 5,000 visits per month |
| If you switch it off | The site stays exactly as it was — the panel rewrites nothing | Remove the script and every change goes with it |
| Appearance settings | Colour, size, position, icon; 8 profiles and 32 tools | Widget colour, size, position and icon |
| What goes on the site | One tag for the panel. The audit needs no code at all | One tag |
| Audit tooling | 90+ rules, scan history, scheduled monitoring — from $49/mo | accessScan free, accessFlow for developers, expert audit and VPAT under accessServices |
| Visitor-facing panel | 32 tools, 8 profiles, interface in 8 languages | accessWidget: interface in 33+ languages; tool count not published |
| Support in Ukrainian | Yes, plus English, Polish and German | Not publicly advertised |
| Regulator action | None | $1M under an FTC order, April 2025 |
| NFB position | The NFB has issued no statement about InclusiveWeb | Resolution 2021-17; convention sponsorship revoked in June 2021 |
Where AccessiBe is stronger — and where we overlap
To be clear rather than convenient: AccessiBe has audit products too. accessScan scans for free, accessFlow is a developer platform, and accessServices covers expert manual audits, user testing and VPAT. We are not the only one here who does more than a widget. Their real edge is elsewhere: a far larger customer base, a longer track record in the US market, and litigation support built into Growth plans and above — up to attorney consultation on Enterprise. We do not offer that: our audit is a technical report, not a legal position.
Two ways to fix accessibility
Overlay: fixes in the browser
- 1The script loads in the visitor's browser
- 2JavaScript alters the page after it has loaded
- 3The site's underlying HTML is unchanged
- !What a screen reader actually announces depends on the specific browser and AT pairing
Fixes in the source code
- 1The audit scans pages against 90+ WCAG 2.1/2.2 AA rules
- 2The report names the criterion, the element and the code snippet
- 3Your developer fixes the cause in the code itself
- ✓A re-scan records exactly what changed
Sources
- Overlay Fact Sheet — 800+ signatories among accessibility practitioners
- WebAIM Million 2026 — 95.9% of home pages had detected WCAG failures (2026 report)
- W3C WCAG Overview — official standard page
- National Federation of the Blind — resolution 2021-17 on accessiBe's practices
- FTC — accessiBe — final order for $1 million, April 2025
FAQ
Does an overlay make a site WCAG-compliant?
On its own, no — and that is no longer a matter of opinion. The FTC's April 2025 final order bars accessiBe from claiming its automated product makes any website WCAG-compliant unless it holds evidence for the claim. Automated tooling covers only part of the criteria by design; the rest needs manual testing with people who use assistive technology.
Why did the NFB come out against accessiBe?
In July 2021 the National Federation of the Blind passed resolution 2021-17 about the company's practices, having revoked its national convention sponsorship on 22 June 2021. The objection was not to widgets as an idea, but to claims of full compliance from a single line of code.
How is your approach different?
We do not try to replace code fixes with a widget. The audit reports specific failures, each tied to a WCAG criterion and a code snippet — your developer fixes them. The panel is a separate personalisation layer for visitors: fonts, contrast, spacing. Autofix, which rewrites HTML in transit, is currently in beta.
How does the cost compare?
We price by pages: a site of up to 50 pages costs $29/mo for the panel, $49/mo for the audit, $79/mo for autofix (beta), with 35% off on annual billing. AccessiBe prices by visits: Micro $490/year up to 5,000 monthly visits, Growth $1,490/year up to 30,000, Scale $3,990/year up to 100,000. So the cheaper option differs by case: a small site with heavy traffic favours us, a large site with light traffic favours them.
Does a widget protect you from an ADA lawsuit?
No. UsableNet recorded more than 5,000 digital accessibility lawsuits in 2025, and in the first half of the year alone 659 cases mentioned a widget on the defendant's site. Courts do not treat installing a widget as evidence of conformance. Documented code fixes are what actually helps.
How do you migrate from AccessiBe?
Sign up, add your domain and run the audit — three pages are free and no card is needed. Read the report before you remove anything. Then drop the AccessiBe script and add our panel with one tag. Switching takes minutes; fixing what the report finds is developer work.
Start by seeing what the audit finds
Three pages free, no credit card. Every finding cites a WCAG criterion and the code behind it.