An honest UserWay alternative for EAA compliance
If you're weighing UserWay against another approach, here's a plain comparison of overlay widgets and code-level monitoring — what each one actually gives you for European Accessibility Act compliance.
Why people look for an alternative
Overlay widgets in general have drawn scrutiny. More than 800 businesses using overlay widgets have been sued over website accessibility despite having one installed, and the European Commission's stated position is that overlay widgets alone do not achieve EAA compliance. Neither of those facts is specific to any one vendor — they apply to the overlay category as a whole.
UserWay itself was acquired by Level Access, a deal that completed in 2024. Level Access is primarily known for enterprise accessibility services, and the acquisition has been read by some UserWay customers as a signal that the product's direction is shifting toward that larger, enterprise-oriented business rather than the self-serve widget market it started in. That's a reasonable enough reason on its own to check what else is out there.
To be clear: none of this is about a specific regulatory action against UserWay. It's about the broader question of whether an overlay — from any vendor — is the right tool for demonstrating EAA compliance.
To be fair: what UserWay does
UserWay is an accessibility overlay and widget vendor. Like other overlays, it installs in minutes with a single script tag, and it gives site visitors a widget for adjusting font size, contrast, and cursor size, among other display preferences. It can also apply some automated ARIA patching in the browser. For a site starting from zero, that's a fast way to offer visible accommodations without touching the codebase.
The question isn't whether that's useful — it can be. The question is whether it's sufficient on its own, and what it doesn't do.
Overlay vs monitoring: two different approaches
An overlay modifies your page at runtime, in the visitor's browser. Your underlying HTML and code don't change. If a visitor has JavaScript disabled, uses assistive technology in a way the overlay doesn't anticipate, or if a regulator's automated pre-suit scan reads your source HTML directly, the underlying issues are typically still there, unaffected by the widget.
Monitoring takes the other route: it identifies code-level issues and routes them to your own developers to fix at the source, and it produces evidence documents — scan reports, accessibility statements — that record what was tested, when, and what was done about it. That kind of dated record is what enforcement processes and courts tend to look for.
Side by side
| Overlay widget | AccessProof | |
|---|---|---|
| Approach | Runtime script adjusts display and applies some automated ARIA patching in the browser | Scans source code and page structure, reports issues for developers to fix |
| Code-level fixes | No | Yes — issues are routed to your own developers with code-level guidance |
| Evidence documents | Not typically produced | Legal-risk ranked reports, PDF evidence reports, accessibility statement generator, VPAT generator |
| Price positioning | Subscription widget pricing, enterprise-oriented since the Level Access acquisition | Free 5-page scan; weekly monitoring from €29/month and agency white-label from €199/month (both coming soon) |
Our honest limits
Automated scanning — including ours — detects roughly 30% of WCAG success criteria. We don't claim to automate full compliance, and no tool honestly can. Manual accessibility audits, which catch issues automated tools can't, typically cost $20,000–60,000 for a full-cycle review or $100–250 per page. Automated monitoring is a starting point and an ongoing discipline, not a replacement for that deeper work when your risk profile calls for it.
See where your site actually stands
Run a free scan of up to 5 pages against WCAG 2.1 A/AA and EN 301 549 — no signup required.
Prefer to read first? Generate a free accessibility statement once you know where you stand.