Compare
Compare the scope, not just the tool.
Each approach does part of the job. This page sets out what each one does, what it leaves to you, and when it is the right choice. These categories overlap: many providers combine tools, audits and remediation. Confirm the specific package and evidence offered.
Six questions to ask a provider.
The difference shows when someone asks you for proof: a procurement reviewer, a regulator, or a lawyer.
The table scrolls sideways on small screens. The approach name stays in view.
| Approach | Finds defects | Fixes them in code | Proves each fix | Stays current after releases | What an auditor or court sees | Typical pricing model |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overlay widget | PartlySome, guessed at runtime in the visitor’s browser | NoAdds a script on top; the defects stay in the code | NoNo independent test of each repair | PartlyRuns on every page load, but the code underneath never changes | The original defects in the code. The FTC fined one vendor $1M in 2025 over compliance claims. | A monthly or annual subscription, usually tiered by traffic or number of pages |
| Automated scanner | PartlyDetects issues covered by its automated rules | NoLists issues for your team to fix | PartlyRe-runs the same automated rules | YesFor the automatable checks, if it runs on every build | A score or issue list that covers the automatable checks only | A subscription, usually priced by pages, domains or seats |
| Manual audit firm | YesThorough, with assistive technology and expert judgement | SometimesUsually recommendations; fixing is a separate engagement | PartlyA re-test, if you book one | NoResults age with the next release unless you book another audit | A dated audit report signed by the firm, often with a VPAT/ACR | A fixed fee or day rate per audit; re-tests and ACRs often priced separately |
| Platform with specialist services | Automated testing combined with expert assessment; coverage varies by package | Developer guidance, suggested code changes or managed remediation | Ask which repairs are re-tested and what evidence is delivered | Monitoring and ongoing services may be available; confirm human-review scope | Reports, findings and conformance documentation according to the engagement | Software subscription plus scoped services, or a managed package |
| Suretto | YesAutomated, assistive-technology and human checks within an agreed scope | YesPull requests in your repository, reviewed and merged by your team | YesA separate system tests each fix; the recording or data is attached | YesAgreed automated monitoring; human reassessment and ACR updates scoped separately | An evidence report for each WCAG 2.2 criterion, plus a VPAT/ACR | Audit from $2,000 per product; fixes scoped per project; accessibility monitoring from $300 per month |
Sources: the FTC figure is from the April 2025 order. The share of failures that automated rules catch is discussed in our article on overlays. Pricing models describe common practice in each category; Suretto's prices are on the pricing page.
When each one is the right choice.
No single approach fits every product. These are the cases where each one earns its place, and what to watch for.
Overlay widget
Fits when you want to offer visitors a toolbar for text size, spacing or contrast, as an extra on a site whose code already meets the standard.
Watch for any claim that the script makes a site conform. It does not change the code, and many screen-reader users already have these adjustments in their own software. Treat it as an addition after the code is fixed, never as the fix.
Automated scanner
Fits when you want a fast, low-cost first pass on every build. Rules catch regressions in the automatable checks before they ship, and they belong in any pipeline.
Watch for a score treated as proof. Automated coverage varies by tool and content. Assistive-technology testing and human judgement remain necessary.
Manual audit firm
Fits when a buyer or your counsel names a specific firm; when you need an individual expert to sign or testify; when the product is outside websites and mobile apps, such as desktop software, kiosks or hardware; or when your own team is ready to fix and needs one thorough, point-in-time report.
Watch for the gap after delivery. The report describes the release that was audited, and fixing is usually a separate engagement.
Suretto
Fits when you need the defects fixed in your code and proof of each fix: a website, web app or online store that ships often, and a report or ACR that has to stay true after each release.
Watch for our stage. We are in a pilot programme and have no customers to point to yet. Mobile app testing with VoiceOver and TalkBack is open to pilot partners and not yet generally available. The sample report shows exactly what you would receive.
What to ask any provider.
These questions apply to us as much as to anyone. The answers separate evidence from assertion.
- Ask to see the artefact behind one passed criterion: the recording, the data or the screenshot.
- Ask who checks a fix, and whether that is the same person or system that wrote it.
- Ask which screen readers, browsers and operating systems were used, and in which versions.
- Ask what happens to the report after your next release.
- Ask what the provider will not claim. No one can certify legal compliance; be wary of anyone who does.
Pilot programme
Judge us on one real product.
We are working with a small group of e-commerce brands, software vendors and agencies through early 2027. Start with one agreed user journey, scoped fixes and an evidence report at no cost. We get your feedback on the report, the fixes and the workflow.
To ask a question first, write to hello@suretto.com.