The European Accessibility Act (EAA) came into force on 28 June 2025. If you run a consumer-facing mobile or web app in the European Union, you are now responsible for making it accessible to disabled users, keeping evidence that you have done so, and publishing an accessibility statement. EAA compliance software is what most teams reach for to do this work.
The market has been growing for years. The categories overlap, the messaging is loud, and prices range from £49 per month to £155,000 per year. Few people are explaining the trade-offs in plain English.
This guide does. It maps the four categories of EAA compliance software, names the main vendors in each, sets out what each does and does not do, and ends with five questions you can take to any sales call. It is written for compliance, product, and legal buyers. No prior accessibility expertise needed.
We name vendors honestly, including our own. If you finish reading and shortlist a competitor, that is fine. The aim is to be the most useful piece on this topic on the internet.
What "EAA compliance software" actually means
The term covers software that helps you do at least one of these jobs:
- Audit. Test a website, web app, or mobile app against accessibility standards (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 Level AA, EN 301 549) and identify failures.
- Remediate. Track and fix the failures the audit found.
- Monitor. Re-test continuously so new failures are caught quickly.
- Document. Produce an accessibility statement and a paper trail of what was tested, what was found, and what was fixed. This is the evidence regulators may ask for.
No single tool does all four jobs equally well. Most products are strong in one or two and weak in the others.
A second axis to understand: automated, guided, and manual.
- Automated tools scan a page or app and produce a list of issues. Coverage is partial. Industry research consistently puts automated detection at around 30 to 50 per cent of WCAG failures.
- Guided tools walk a non-expert through a structured audit. Coverage is broader because a human is in the loop. The trade-off is time.
- Manual audits are done by accessibility experts. They are the most thorough and the most expensive. A consultancy audit for a single mobile app typically costs £15,000 to £50,000.
The right tool depends on your maturity, your budget, and what you need to produce at the end. A startup with one app needs a different tool to a Fortune 500 retailer with a hundred web properties.
If your job is to publish a defensible accessibility statement, you need a tool that does all four jobs. If your job is to catch regressions in a continuous integration pipeline, automated audit alone may be enough. If your job is a one-off external sign-off for the board, manual consultancy may fit.
The four categories of EAA compliance software
Category A: Enterprise accessibility platforms
For Fortune 500 retailers, banks, and government. Comprehensive, expensive, and slow to deploy.
The main vendors are:
- Level Access (acquired UserWay in 2023). Median customer contract is around $40,000 per year, with a public range of $18,000 to $155,000. Web focus, with compliance services bundled in.
- Deque. The company behind axe-core, the open-source rules engine that powers most automated testing in the market. Paid developer tooling (axe DevTools) starts at around $40 per user per month. The enterprise platform sits in the high five figures.
- Evinced. Developer-centric, raised a $55M Series C, no public pricing, Fortune 500 focus.
- Siteimprove. A web governance bundle that pairs accessibility with SEO, content, and analytics. Median contract around $28,000 per year. Marketing-team buyer.
- TPGi (now part of Vispero). Audit consultancy combined with tooling.
Strengths: deep coverage, comprehensive reporting, established compliance credibility. Weaknesses: opaque pricing, long sales cycles, designed for organisations with in-house accessibility teams already in place.
Category B: Developer testing tools
For engineering teams that want to catch issues in continuous integration before code ships.
The main tools are:
- axe-core (open source, free). The de facto standard automated rules engine. Powers most other tools in the market.
- axe DevTools (Deque, commercial layer on top of axe-core). $40 per user per month for the Pro tier.
- Pa11y (open source, free). Headless command-line testing.
- Lighthouse and Accessibility Insights (Google and Microsoft, both free).
- WAVE (WebAIM, free browser extension; paid API for bulk testing).
- Applitools (visual testing with some accessibility coverage).
Strengths: free or cheap, integrate cleanly into continuous integration, catch regressions early. Weaknesses: no governance dashboard, no compliance documentation, no accessibility statement output, no audit trail. Engineers love them. Compliance teams cannot use them on their own.
Category C: Overlays and accessibility widgets
A JavaScript snippet that adds an "accessibility menu" to your site. Cheap and fast to install. Controversial.
The main vendors are:
- accessiBe. Plans start at $49 per month per the company's own pricing page. Reseller materials list three tiers: Standard at around $490 per year (under 1,000 pages), Advanced at around $1,490 per year (under 10,000 pages), and Advanced Plus at around $3,490 per year.
- UserWay. Free Lite tier, $49 per month Small (up to 100,000 page views), $149 per month Medium (up to 1 million page views), custom Large. Owned by Level Access since 2023, still operating as a separate brand.
- EqualWeb. AI widget starting at around $390 per year for small sites.
- AudioEye. As of 2026, Essentials at $199 per month, Advanced at $399 per month, Assurance at $799 per month per recent reviews. AudioEye's own pricing page no longer shows dollar figures publicly. Older sources still cite $49 per month for entry tiers; that figure is outdated.
What they do: surface a user-facing toolbar that lets visitors change font size, contrast, and colour, plus a server-side scan that reports issues. What they do not do: change the underlying code. They sit on top of an inaccessible site without making it accessible.
This category needs its own section because of the legal context. We come to that next.
Category D: Mobile-first accessibility platforms
A small but growing category. The web has had compliance tooling for fifteen years. Mobile apps have been an afterthought.
The main vendors are:
- AUDITSU (Leeds, United Kingdom). Self-serve guided audit against EN 301 549 and WCAG 2.1 Level AA, ticket-based remediation, auto-generated accessibility statements. £197 per month beta tier. Mobile-first, mid-market focused. Explicitly markets EAA and EN 301 549 mobile compliance.
- Abra (Utrecht, Netherlands). Founded 2014, launched the Abra ecosystem of mobile accessibility software in 2025. Abra Desktop scans native iOS and Android apps. Manual app accessibility testing services from €2,000. Publishes deep content on EN 301 549 v3.2.1 and v4.1.0 and explicitly ties its work to the EAA.
- Sofy (Bellevue, United States). Founded 2016, $7.75M raised. Launched automated accessibility testing for mobile in June 2024. Capterra lists a starting price around $599 per month. Does not explicitly market EAA.
The bigger enterprise vendors have added mobile products too. Evinced Mobile Flow Analyzer (no SDK install, supports Swift, Android, React Native, and WebViews), Deque axe DevTools Mobile (continuous-integration-integrated mobile scanning), and BrowserStack App Accessibility Testing Suite (3,500-plus real device cloud) all test native mobile apps. They map issues to WCAG, but none of them market EAA or EN 301 549 compliance explicitly. Generic WCAG coverage is not the same as EAA-ready evidence.
As of April 2026, the only software platforms explicitly marketing EAA and EN 301 549 mobile compliance are AUDITSU and Abra. Every other tool either tests mobile against generic WCAG, or tests web only.
The overlay problem
Buyers searching "EAA compliance software" land on overlay ads first. You should understand the legal and reputational reality before spending money there.
An overlay is JavaScript that runs in the visitor's browser. It cannot rewrite the HTML or fix the underlying website. It can give the user a toolbar that changes font size and colour, but the page's structural problems (missing labels, inaccessible navigation, untagged images) remain. The screen reader still reads the broken page.
Disability-rights organisations have been documenting overlay failures for years. The National Federation of the Blind has publicly criticised accessiBe and banned the company from sponsoring its convention.
In April 2025, the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a Decision and Order against accessiBe. The company paid $1 million and is now prohibited from claiming that its automated products can make websites compliant or maintain compliance with WCAG, unless it has substantiating evidence. This is on public record. FTC press release here(opens in new tab).
The EAA, like the Americans with Disabilities Act, requires that the underlying digital service is accessible. An overlay does not change the underlying service. EU regulators have not made specific public rulings on overlays as of April 2026, but the disability community's position is unambiguous, and the FTC action is a strong signal of regulatory direction.
Overlays are not a category to cross off entirely. Some buyers genuinely have a small static site and want a toolbar. They should not, however, be the foundation of an EAA compliance programme. If you sell a mobile app, overlays are irrelevant by definition.
The mobile app gap
Most accessibility tooling was built for the web. Most EAA-exposed companies have a mobile app.
WCAG was written for the browser. It assumes a user agent (the browser itself) handles a lot of accessibility plumbing. Mobile apps do not have that assumption. The EU's harmonised standard, EN 301 549, has a separate chapter for software, Chapter 11, with around 64 requirements that WCAG does not cover at all.
Web-only accessibility tools cannot test a native iOS or Android app. They can sometimes scan a mobile-web view of the app's marketing pages. That is not the same as testing the app itself.
The major enterprise vendors have all added mobile products in the last few years. Evinced ships Mobile Flow Analyzer. Deque ships axe DevTools Mobile. BrowserStack ships an App Accessibility Testing Suite with a real device cloud. These tools test mobile apps against WCAG. So mobile testing is not the gap.
The gap is EAA-specific mobile coverage. The tools above were designed for an existing United States WCAG and Section 508 audience and bolted on EAA awareness later. They map issues to WCAG, not to EN 301 549 Chapter 11 specifically. They produce engineering bug reports, not the audit trail and accessibility statement a compliance officer needs to publish under Article 13 of the EAA.
A mid-market company with a consumer mobile app and no accessibility programme can run an audit using any of those tools. What they cannot do, with most of them, is finish the audit cycle by producing a regulator-ready accessibility statement linked to live audit data. That closed-loop work is what AUDITSU and Abra are built for.
Manual consultancy audits cost £15,000 to £50,000 per app. They take weeks. They produce a snapshot, not a living compliance state. For a deeper read on what EN 301 549 actually requires, see the EN 301 549 reference page.
Pricing reality check
Three price bands, in plain English.
- Under £2,000 per year. Overlays, free open-source tools, the cheapest scanning tiers. Suitable for very small sites or as an experiment. Not enough on its own for a mid-market EAA exposure.
- £5,000 to £20,000 per year. The mid-market sweet spot. Self-serve platforms with proper documentation, audit trails, and (in some cases) mobile coverage. AUDITSU sits at the lower end of this band.
- £25,000 per year and up. Enterprise platforms. Bundled services, dedicated account management, multi-property governance. Worth it if you have many web properties and an internal accessibility team to operate the platform.
Pricing transparency matters. If a vendor will not publish a starting price, your procurement cycle just got longer. Build that into your timeline.
External consultancy is the right call for a one-off, board-level sign-off. For everything ongoing, software is cheaper, faster, and produces a better audit trail.
What about your existing GRC platform?
Many compliance buyers' first instinct is to ask their existing governance, risk, and compliance (GRC) platform. The honest answer, as of April 2026, is that none of the mainstream platforms have added the European Accessibility Act as a managed framework.
We checked the major platforms publicly. OneTrust has published blog content on the EAA but does not list it as a selectable framework in its Tech Risk and Compliance product. Vanta does not list EAA among its 30-plus supported frameworks. Drata does not list it among its 30-plus. Secureframe and Hyperproof do not list it either. Custom-framework features in each platform mean a customer can model EAA controls themselves, but no platform offers a packaged EAA module with automated testing, evidence collection, and statement templates.
The exception is Stark, an accessibility-specific platform that added EAA frameworks to its public Compliance Center in early 2026. That is a useful signal: accessibility-focused vendors are starting to treat EAA as a first-class framework. The general-purpose GRC suites have not caught up yet.
If you already pay for a GRC platform, ask the account team directly: do you have an EAA framework today? If not, when? In the meantime, what tool do you recommend for the accessibility testing and statement generation parts of the workflow?
Five questions to ask any EAA compliance software vendor
The actionable core. Take this list to a sales call and rule vendors in or out.
1. Does it test against EN 301 549, not just WCAG?
The EAA references EN 301 549 as the "presumed means of conformance." WCAG is a subset. A WCAG-only tool leaves gaps in mobile, documentation, and platform-preference requirements. Ask: "Does your audit cover Chapter 11 of EN 301 549, specifically Annex A Table A.2?"
2. Does it test the platform you actually ship on?
If you have a native iOS or Android app, a web scanner is not enough. Ask: "Can you test a native iOS application? An Android one? What is your mobile coverage compared to your web coverage?"
3. Does it produce an audit trail you can show a regulator?
The point of an EAA programme is not just to be accessible, but to be able to demonstrate that you are. Ask: "If a regulator asks me what I tested, when, what failed, and what I fixed, can your tool produce that report with one click?"
4. Does it generate the accessibility statement?
Article 13 of the EAA requires you to publish an accessibility statement. The statement must be specific, current, and jurisdiction-appropriate. Some tools generate it automatically from the audit data. Some leave you to write it yourself. Ask: "Does your platform produce an accessibility statement directly from my live audit data, and does it update when I fix something?"
5. Is the pricing transparent and the contract self-serve?
Procurement is the silent killer of compliance projects. A six-week sales cycle to get a quote is six weeks of exposure with no progress. Ask: "What is the price? Can I sign up online, or do I need a sales call? What happens if I want to add a second app?"
If a vendor cannot answer all five plainly, that is a signal in itself. A vendor that has thought hard about mid-market EAA buyers will have rehearsed answers to every one of them.
Choosing your EAA compliance software
The category is fragmented and the marketing is loud. The underlying jobs are clear: audit, remediate, monitor, document. Pick the tool that matches the job your team most needs to do, at the price band you can sustain.
A short way to read the landscape:
- If you have many web properties and an in-house accessibility team, look at the enterprise platforms.
- If you have engineers who want to catch issues in continuous integration, start with axe-core or axe DevTools.
- If you have a small static brochure site and a tight budget, an overlay is a quick toolbar (it is not a compliance programme).
- If you have a mobile app and need a closed-loop EAA programme, look at the mobile-first vendors.
AUDITSU is a self-serve EAA compliance platform built specifically for mobile apps. We do not sell overlays. We do not do consultancy audits. We are a guided audit toolkit, a ticket manager, and a statement generator, all in one platform, priced to sit below mid-market procurement thresholds. If you have a mobile app shipping in the EU and you need a compliance programme you can run in-house, we are likely a fit. If your needs are mostly web-only, or you need a multi-property enterprise governance suite, the vendors above will probably serve you better.
Either way, the goal is the same: a defensible accessibility statement, backed by evidence, that you can keep current as your product changes.
Run your first audit on AUDITSU. Free 30-day trial, no procurement cycle.