Audit-grade AI for digital accessibility
AI auditors. NVDA-backed screen reader simulation. IAAP-format report. In hours, not weeks.
Page traversed
/checkout
Heading: Order summary
Button: Place order
Input: Card number
⚠ Input: Unlabelled
IAAP Report
47 findings · 3 critical
2.1M+
WCAG checks run weekly
across customer sites
93%
mean audit accuracy
benchmarked against IAAP review
IAAP
report format
used by Fortune 500 a11y teams
Audited by Artificial Intelligence
One AI auditor, the full WCAG 2.2 criterion set. Every audit runs the same evaluation suite — automated rules, keyboard traversal, ARIA semantics, contrast measurement, NVDA-backed screen reader simulation, media and document checks — and discloses, finding by finding, what was machine-tested and where humans should pair-review. That disclosure is what makes AI-led auditing defensible.
WCAG coverage
WCAG coverage
WCAG coverage
WCAG coverage
WCAG coverage
WCAG coverage
WCAG coverage
Why this matters
Most "AI accessibility" tools render their model as a single anonymous blob — you cannot tell what was machine-tested vs human-reviewed, and the result is harder to defend in procurement, court, or EU market surveillance. We disclose, on every finding, that the auditor is AI and which checks ran — so the report reads, and stands up to review, like one produced by an IAAP-credentialed team.
Hours, not months
Traditional accessibility firms quote weeks for a single audit cycle — scoping calls, engagement paperwork, manual testing, report drafting. We deliver the same procurement-grade IAAP report in hours, with human pair-review returning in days. Compounding gain: every deploy can re-run.
Traditional audit firm
6–12 weeks totalScoping & contracting
1–2 weeks
Engagement kickoff
~1 week
Audit execution (manual)
3–6 weeks
Report drafting & QA
1–2 weeks
Delivery + remediation kickoff
~1 week
Then repeat next quarter. Regressions between cycles ship unchecked.
AccessivePath
Hours → daysSubmit URL
< 1 minute
AI audit execution
1–4 hours
IAAP-format ACR delivered
same hour
Human pair-review (Scale / Enterprise)
24–48 hours
Re-run on every deploy (CI)
minutes
And every commit can trigger a fresh audit. No calendar to manage.
The point isn’t to skip human review — it’s to stop paying for the weeks before the audit even starts.
The audit cycle, on AI time
The same three phases every audit team runs — automated, IAAP-formatted, repeatable, and integrated with the tools your engineering team already uses.
Find everything the automation can find — and the 70% it cannot.
AI auditors traverse your site like a human auditor would: keyboard, screen reader simulation, contrast, ARIA, forms, media. Static rule scanning is the floor, not the ceiling.
Learn moreEvery finding mapped to WCAG, with severity, evidence, and fix.
Each issue references its WCAG 2.2 success criterion, includes a screen-reader transcript or screenshot as evidence, and ships with a specific source-level remediation recommendation.
Learn moreIAAP-aligned report. VPAT 2.5-ready. Defensible.
Your auditor delivers the same Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR) format used by Fortune 500 a11y teams. Procurement-ready, court-citable, downloadable as PDF and JSON.
Learn moreFree audit · no card
Drop your URL and email. We scan up to 50 pages, show the first three findings inline, and email the full IAAP-format report to you and the founders.
The category in four numbers
4,605
ADA Title III web lawsuits filed in 2024.
95.9%
of top 1M home pages had detectable WCAG failures.
Source: WebAIM Million 2024
28 June 2025
European Accessibility Act enforcement date.
Source: Directive (EU) 2019/882
25–30%
of WCAG criteria detectable by purely automated testing.
Compliance coverage
11 standards. One audit. Cross-mapped findings so a single fix satisfies WCAG, ADA, EAA, Section 508, and the rest simultaneously.
Global
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.2
Global
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1
United
Americans with Disabilities Act
European
European Accessibility Act
United
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act
European
EN 301 549 — Accessibility requirements for ICT products and services
Ontario,
Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act
Canada
Accessible Canada Act
California,
Unruh Civil Rights Act
European
EU Web Accessibility Directive
France
Référentiel général d'amélioration de l'accessibilité
A note on widgets and overlays
No. Widgets adjust how content renders for individual visitors — text size, contrast modes, dyslexia-friendly fonts. They do not remediate the underlying source code. WCAG conformance is graded at source level, and US federal courts (Murphy v. Eyebobs, Suarez v. Camping World, Hernandez v. Caesars) have repeatedly held that the presence of an overlay does not preclude ADA liability.
Our product produces an IAAP-format audit report with source-level remediation guidance. If you want a preferences panel for end users, ship one separately — opt-in, disclosed, and never marketed as a compliance solution.
See the Overlay Fact Sheet, signed by 900+ accessibility professionals.
Industry-specific audits
Every regulated industry layers different standards on top of WCAG. Pick yours.
E-commerce accessibility means designing online stores so that people with disabilities — including the 1.3 billion globally with significant disability — can browse, search, add to cart, and check out independently, using assistive technologies and adaptive inputs.
View E-commerce guide →
Healthcare accessibility ensures patient portals, telehealth platforms, appointment systems, and clinical content are usable by people with disabilities — a regulatory obligation under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, the ADA, and HHS final rules implementing WCAG 2.1 AA for recipients of federal funding.
View Healthcare guide →
Financial-services accessibility requires online banking, mobile apps, investment platforms, insurance portals and payment products to be usable by customers with disabilities — a hard regulatory requirement under the EAA in Europe (28 June 2025 enforcement), the ADA in the US, and emerging CFPB guidance on equal access to credit.
View Finance & Banking guide →
Education accessibility means that learning management systems, course materials, lecture video, assessment platforms and student-services portals are usable by students and faculty with disabilities — a binding requirement under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the ADA, and the DOJ's April 2024 final rule mandating WCAG 2.1 AA for state/local government bodies.
View Education guide →
Government accessibility — at federal, state, and local levels — is mandated in the US by Section 508 (federal) and the DOJ's April 2024 Title II rule (state/local, WCAG 2.1 AA), in the EU by the Web Accessibility Directive (EN 301 549), and in Canada by the Accessible Canada Act, making the public sector the most regulated digital surface globally.
View Government guide →
Media accessibility requires news sites, streaming platforms, audiobooks, and editorial content to be perceivable by users who are blind, have low vision, or are deaf or hard of hearing — through captions, audio descriptions, transcripts, navigable structure, and accessible video players that meet WCAG 2.1 AA and (for EU audiovisual services) the EAA-aligned AVMSD.
View Media & Publishing guide →
Travel and hospitality accessibility covers airline and hotel websites, booking platforms, loyalty portals, and travel apps — a regulatory must under the Air Carrier Access Act for US airlines, the EAA for EU passenger transport, the ADA for hotels and tour operators, and the DOT's 2024 final rule on airline website accessibility.
View Travel & Hospitality guide →
SaaS accessibility means that B2B and B2C software products — dashboards, admin consoles, embedded widgets, and APIs — meet WCAG 2.2 AA so that employees with disabilities and the customers they serve can use the product, which is increasingly a procurement requirement (VPAT/ACR) and an EAA obligation for consumer-facing SaaS in scope.
View SaaS & Software guide →
Real estate accessibility requires property listing sites, mortgage application portals, and brokerage dashboards to be usable by buyers, renters, and agents with disabilities — a Fair Housing Act requirement that DOJ and HUD enforce alongside ADA Title III, with the Fair Housing Act explicitly prohibiting accessibility-related discrimination in advertising and access.
View Real Estate guide →
Restaurant and hospitality accessibility — covering menus, online ordering, reservation platforms, and loyalty programmes — is enforced under ADA Title III in the US and EAA in the EU, with the highest-frequency failure being inaccessible PDF menus and click-to-call ordering flows that exclude users of assistive technology.
View Restaurants & Hospitality guide →
Non-profit accessibility ensures donation portals, volunteer signup, programme information, and grant applications are usable by donors, volunteers, and beneficiaries with disabilities — an obligation under the ADA, Section 504 (for federally funded non-profits), and the EAA for EU-facing non-profit services.
View Non-profit guide →
Customers
The IAAP-format report we received in the first audit cycle was indistinguishable from what our previous human consultancy delivered — at a fraction of the turnaround. Our compliance committee accepted the methodology without revision.
4 weeks → 6 hours audit turnaround
A. Mendelsohn
VP, Digital Accessibility, Major National Bank (anonymised)
What sold our procurement team was the disclosed scope on every finding. We could see exactly what the AI auditor evaluated across each WCAG criterion family — and pair the output with our internal IAAP-credentialed reviewers.
12,000 pages audited weekly
D. Chen
Director of Accessibility, Fortune 500 Retailer
The NVDA-backed simulation evidence in the report — actual screen-reader transcripts — settled internal debate about whether issues were real. We stopped arguing about findings and started fixing them.
P. Mehta
Head of Engineering, Patient Platform, Regional Health System
Integrations
Frameworks, CI, ticketing, IDEs, design, CMS, cloud. 33 live integrations and counting.
FAQ
Cited answers. Sourced. Updated as standards and case law change.
You submit a URL and your email at /audit/free. Our AI auditor fetches up to 50 pages of the site, runs a full WCAG 2.2 AA evaluation — automated rules, keyboard traversal, ARIA validation, contrast measurement, and an NVDA-backed screen reader simulation — and assembles an IAAP-format Accessibility Conformance Report. You see the top three findings inline immediately; the complete PDF + JSON report is emailed to you within a few hours. No card, no signup, no installation. Inquiries are routed to founders@accessivepath.com.
The auditor runs a real screen-reader simulation (NVDA-backed), keyboard traversal, contrast checking against WCAG 1.4.3 / 1.4.6 / 1.4.11, ARIA validation, semantic HTML evaluation, and form-flow testing — then maps each finding to a WCAG 2.2 success criterion, assigns a severity, and produces an IAAP-format Accessibility Conformance Report. Roughly 25–30% of WCAG criteria are reliably machine-detectable; we run those automatically and pair-review the remainder with IAAP-credentialed human auditors on Scale and Enterprise tiers.
Those products are accessibility overlay widgets that adjust how content renders for individual visitors. We do not ship an overlay. We produce a source-code audit report with WCAG-graded findings — the same artefact courts, the DOJ and EU market-surveillance authorities benchmark against. If you want a user-preferences panel, build one separately; do not market it as a compliance solution.
A documented audit report against WCAG 2.2 AA is the standard piece of evidence in ADA Title III defence — it shows you tested, documented, and remediated to a known standard. Our reports are formatted as Accessibility Conformance Reports (ACRs) and are routinely accepted by procurement and legal teams. No product can categorically prevent litigation, but a documented audit programme is the strongest single piece of evidence courts and the DOJ look for.
Industry consensus and W3C-WAI guidance both place fully automated coverage at approximately 25–30% of WCAG success criteria. The remaining 70% — including most cognitive, keyboard, screen reader, and meaningful-content criteria — requires manual review. We are explicit about this. We run automation as a floor; humans review what automation cannot.
For high-volume regression testing and procurement-ready VPATs — yes, increasingly. For deep manual programmes (user testing with disabled people, custom-component design review) we pair with IAAP-credentialed humans, either ours or yours. The right model depends on your maturity stage and risk profile.
WCAG 2.0 / 2.1 / 2.2 (all levels), Section 508, EN 301 549, ADA Title II and III, EAA (EU), AODA (Ontario), ACA (Canada), RGAA (France), Unruh (California), and the Web Accessibility Directive (EU public sector). Our reports cross-map findings so a single fix typically satisfies multiple regimes simultaneously.
Yes — our AI auditor is trained on labelled WCAG findings from real, consented IAAP-led audits, with explicit disclosure of training scope and AI provenance throughout. We do not present AI output as human review.
Most single-domain audits complete in 1–4 hours of wall time depending on page count, with full IAAP-format report delivered immediately and human pair-review (on Scale / Enterprise tiers) returning within 24–48 hours.
Free audit on your live URL. No sign-up. IAAP-format report. Ready in hours.
founders@accessivepath.com · +977 9851094056
