Accessibility, checked once and then watched

What happens, and when

• The day you subscribe, the full report lands: every page in your sitemap, or crawled outward from the home page if there is none. Not a sample of them. You are not paying for something that arrives later.
• Every finding grouped by WCAG success criterion, with the page, the line and the element it sits on.
• A plain-language explanation and a fix for each one, written to be forwarded rather than translated.
• A score per page and for the site, so remediation can be prioritised and progress shown later.
• Then every week, the same audit runs again and you get the difference: what broke since last time, what got fixed, what is new. Nothing changed means no email.
• And the rest of the technical pass, from the same page read: HTML validity, meta tags, Open Graph, page weight, your stylesheets and your robots.txt. Accessibility is what the report leads with and what the score is built on; these come with it.
• An explicit list of what the automated pass could not test, so nobody mistakes the report for a full accessibility statement.

What it cannot tell you

Automated testing finds a genuine subset of accessibility failures and misses the rest. Anyone selling you certainty here is selling you something they do not have. Specifically, this audit does not judge:

• Whether alt text is useful. We can see that it exists, not that it describes anything.
• Keyboard traps, focus order, and whether a keyboard user can actually complete a task.
• Colour contrast, which needs the computed styles rather than the markup.
• Whether a label, heading or link text makes sense to someone hearing it out of context.
• Caption quality, reading order, and anything that needs a person with a screen reader.

This is an automated audit and a remediation list. It is not a certification, and on its own it does not establish conformance with the European Accessibility Act or with WCAG at any level. It is the part of the work that can be done by machine, done thoroughly and honestly, so that the human review that follows starts from a much shorter list.

Vous cherchez ce qui s’applique en France ? Notre page sur l’audit d’accessibilité RGAA détaille les deux régimes applicables et les décisions de justice rendues en 2026.

Who should not buy this

If you want to check one page, use the free Accessibility Checker. It runs the same engine with the same rule set and it always will. If you are a developer auditing your own site and you are happy reading a list of findings, the free tool is the whole product and you should not pay us anything. And if your site ships twice a year, monitoring is not worth a monthly fee to you: this earns its keep on sites that change, and on client work where somebody else’s name is on the document.

Why we can say what is worth fixing first

We ran this engine over 2,656 of the Tranco top 5,000 sites and published the whole ranking. 87.2% of them break the HTML specification on their home page. 27.2% ship an iframe with no accessible name. 42.7% have a form control with no label. Your report is ranked against that measurement, so it tells you where your site sits rather than only what it contains.

The same study lists the corrections we have made to our own engine, with dates and before-and-after numbers. That is the standard the report is written to.

See it on your own site first

Not a sample: every page your site publishes, with the real findings rather than a count teasing them. If it turns up nothing worth fixing, you have your answer and it cost you nothing.

Questions