EN 301 549 · WCAG 2.1 AA · European Accessibility Act
Accessibility findings your developers can actually fix.
We scan your client sites on a weekly schedule, then hand back a runnable Playwright suite where each defect is a failing test: red now, green only when it is genuinely fixed. Not a PDF. Not an overlay widget.
Send one URL you are authorised to test. We reply with the real findings and the exact fixes. No account, no card.
Why this is urgent now
The deadline has already passed.
The European Accessibility Act became enforceable on 28 June 2025. It binds a defined list of sectors (e-commerce, banking and payments, ticketing, passenger transport, telephony and audiovisual media) across all 27 member states, to EN 301 549, which takes WCAG 2.1 Level AA as its web baseline. The first French lawsuits were filed in November 2025.
| Member state | Exposure |
|---|---|
| Sweden | up to approximately €900,000 |
| France | €5,000–€250,000, plus €25,000 per year for a missing accessibility statement |
| Germany | up to €100,000 per violation |
| Ireland | up to €60,000 |
The Act also requires a published accessibility statement, an accessible support channel, and a documented, ongoing compliance process. Conformance drifts with every deploy, so a single audit satisfies none of it.
How it works
Four artifacts, generated on every run.
-
You connect a site
A URL you are authorised to test. We crawl its public pages: read-only, respecting robots.txt, no authenticated areas, no form submissions, no load testing.
-
We run the checks
axe-core against the WCAG 2.1 A and AA rulesets in both light and dark colour schemes, plus functional checks: JavaScript console errors and failed requests. Every failure keeps the exact DOM node, CSS selector, a screenshot and a Playwright trace.
-
You get code, not a document
A git repository wired for CI where every finding is one failing assertion. Your developers run it, fix, and watch it go green. Remediation is verified by the build.
-
Artifact 01
Playwright suite
A real repo with a GitHub Actions workflow. One assertion per finding, traces and screenshots retained on failure.
-
Artifact 02
Computed remediation
For contrast failures, the replacement value is solved against the measured background:
#61b5aaat 2.27:1 becomes#427b74at 4.58:1, not "increase contrast". -
Artifact 03
White-label report
Client-ready under your agency's branding, so you forward it rather than rewrite it.
-
Artifact 04
Evidence bundle and history
Screenshots, Playwright traces and the raw scan, plus a dated log per site showing whether the defect count moved since the last run.
Our own measurements
We scanned 21 EU shops. Thirteen of the fourteen we could measure properly had defects.
Targets were drawn from the public portfolio pages of German, Swiss, Dutch and French web agencies, which is work those agencies chose to showcase. Scans were capped at three pages per site to keep load on third-party servers light, so every figure here is a floor. Seven sites returned one page or fewer and are excluded rather than counted as clean: a blocked crawl and a conformant site produce identical zeros.
We publish aggregates only. We never name a site's defects publicly, and we never approach anyone by threatening to. Findings go to the site's owner or to whoever commissioned the scan.
| Rule | Criterion | Sites | Elements | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
color-contrast | 1.4.3 | 10 | 93 | serious |
image-alt | 1.1.1 | 10 | 67 | critical |
button-name | 4.1.2 | 7 | 39 | critical |
link-name | 4.1.2 | 8 | 34 | critical |
select-name | 4.1.2 | 5 | 30 | critical |
aria-required-children | 1.3.1 | 6 | 14 | critical |
select-name and button-name are the ones that matter commercially.
On a shop, those are variant pickers and add-to-cart controls, which is the checkout path. An
unlabelled select is not a styling nitpick; it means a screen-reader user cannot complete a
purchase.
One thing we tested and disproved: we expected a site's platform to predict its defects. Across ten Shopware shops, the mean overlap between any two sites' failure sets was 0.21, against 0.19 for unrelated sites, which is indistinguishable. Platform tells you almost nothing. Every site has to be measured.
Read this before you buy
Automated testing cannot establish conformance, and we will never tell you otherwise.
Deque's study across 13,000 pages found automation surfaces roughly 57% of accessibility defects by volume, but only 16 of the 50 Level AA success criteria can be meaningfully automated at all. The remaining 34 need a person.
What no tool can decide, including ours:
- Whether alternative text is genuinely descriptive, rather than merely present
- Whether keyboard focus order follows a logical reading sequence
- Whether an error message explains how to recover
- Whether captions are accurate to the media
- Whether a page is operable end to end with a screen reader
So we sell evidence, remediation and a documented process, never a compliance badge. In January 2025 the US Federal Trade Commission fined an overlay vendor $1,000,000 for claiming its automated product could make sites WCAG compliant; the final order bars it from repeating the claim without evidence. We think that claim was always dishonest, and the 43% of criteria needing human judgement is where your agency bills its own hours on top of ours.
Pricing
Flat monthly, cancel whenever.
Single site
$49 / month
- One site, scanned weekly
- Playwright suite and computed fixes
- Light and dark colour schemes
- Dated remediation log
Agency
$199 / month
- Up to 15 client sites
- Reports white-labelled to your brand
- Light and dark colour schemes
- Dated remediation log per site
One-off audit
$299 once
- One site, more pages per scan
- Full suite and remediation set
- No subscription
- Credited if you subscribe later
Prices exclude any applicable taxes. Billing is handled by Razorpay; we never see or store your card details.
What we do not do, as of today
No deploy-triggered scans (scans run on a schedule), no generated accessibility statement, no customer-facing dashboard, and no visual-regression diffing. We would rather list these than let you discover them after paying. Ask if any of them is the thing you actually need.
Who you are dealing with
A small operation, and we would rather say so.
conformance.report is run by Ramanand Kumar, a QA automation engineer, with a largely automated pipeline doing the scanning, reporting and remediation work. We are new. We have no logo wall to show you.
What we offer instead is verifiable: send us a URL and we will send back real defects in your own code, with the exact fixes, before you pay anything. That is a stronger claim than a customer list, because you can check it in an afternoon.
This site is scanned by the engine it sells, in both light and dark colour schemes, before it ships. It currently reports zero violations, and we publish our own accessibility statement saying why that still is not conformance. An accessibility vendor whose own site fails is not worth your money.