UserWay vs AudioEye: Which Accessibility Solution Has the Stronger Offering?

Userway Vs AudioEye: quick comparison for UK organisations

This comparison looks at UserWay Vs AudioEye to help procurement, accessibility leads and developers choose between a lean widget-based option and a managed, enterprise-focused service. Short answer: UserWay tends to suit organisations that want a fast, low-touch widget and basic automated scanning; AudioEye is generally a better fit where continuous monitoring, managed remediation and an enterprise support model are required.

Quick comparison snapshot

Criteria	UserWay	AudioEye
Core offering	Accessibility widget; automated scanning and reporting	Automated monitoring, remediation services and managed accessibility
Approach	Widget-first; self-serve options	Hybrid: automated tooling plus human remediation and monitoring
Manual testing	Requires third-party/manual testing to achieve full coverage	Offers managed remediation and manual testing services as part of enterprise plans
Reporting & governance	Automated scan reports; governance features vary by plan	Detailed monitoring dashboards and remediation tracking aimed at enterprise teams
Best fit	Small-to-mid organisations seeking quick deployment	Large organisations and public sector needing ongoing remediation

What is UserWay?

UserWay is widely known for an on-site accessibility widget that can be added to websites quickly to provide accessibility features and an automated scanner that highlights issues. It is often chosen for fast deployment, a self-serve purchase model and CMS plugins that simplify installation. Organisations use UserWay when they want an immediately visible accessibility interface for users and a basic automated scan to identify obvious issues.

Limits and considerations: the widget alone does not deliver full WCAG conformance and manual testing is still required. Public detail on enterprise support tiers and exact remediation workflows varies by plan and should be confirmed with the vendor.

What is AudioEye?

AudioEye combines automated scanning and an on-site accessibility interface with a stronger focus on managed remediation, continuous monitoring and enterprise support. AudioEye positions itself as a managed accessibility partner for organisations that need ongoing governance, remediation tracking and dedicated services to reduce accessibility debt.

Limits and considerations: while AudioEye includes human-backed remediation in some offerings, no vendor can guarantee full legal compliance through automation alone; manual conformance testing and developer-led fixes remain essential. Specifics of monitoring frequency, service-levels and remediation scope depend on the chosen plan and should be verified with AudioEye.

Feature comparison: testing scope, WCAG coverage, integrations and reporting

Both providers use automated scanning as part of their toolsets and provide an on-site accessibility interface. Key differences buyers typically weigh:

• Automated vs manual coverage: Automated tools detect a subset of WCAG issues (for example missing alt text, colour contrast failures detectable programmatically); neither vendor’s automation replaces manual or assistive-technology testing.
• Remediation model: UserWay is frequently used as a self-serve widget plus scanner; AudioEye commonly emphasises managed remediation and an ongoing monitoring service backed by human review.
• Integrations: Both vendors offer CMS integrations and APIs in some plans, but the exact list and depth of integration differ by plan and are not uniform across all customers.
• Reporting and governance: AudioEye typically highlights enterprise dashboards and remediation tracking, while UserWay focuses on scan reports and widget-driven accessibility features. Buyers who need audit trails and evidence for governance should request demonstration of reporting features from each vendor.

Note: specific WCAG version or level support, and the extent to which each vendor’s reports map to WCAG success criteria, should be confirmed by reviewing vendor documentation and any available VPAT or conformance statements. Automated scans generally cover only a subset of WCAG 2.1/2.2 checks.

Pricing comparison

Both UserWay and AudioEye offer multiple tiers; many vendors use tiered pricing based on site traffic, number of pages or the level of managed services included. Public, fixed-price plans may be available for smaller sites; enterprise pricing is typically bespoke. Because pricing and inclusions change frequently, procurement should request a written breakdown from each vendor that lists exactly what the plan includes (scans per month, remediation hours, support SLA, integrations).

Ratings and user reviews

Prospective buyers will find user reviews on marketplaces such as G2 and Capterra that discuss ease of deployment, support responsiveness and remediation outcomes. Reviews for both vendors vary by customer size and use case: some buyers praise quick deployment and visibility of on-site widgets, while others report needing additional developer effort or manual audits to resolve complex issues.

Because review content and scores change over time, buyers should check recent reviews and prioritise testimonials or case studies from organisations similar to their own.

Ease of use and support

Ease of use differs by buyer persona:

• Non-technical teams: UserWay’s widget and plugins can be easier for non-technical teams to add to a site quickly.
• Accessibility teams and developers: AudioEye’s managed model and remediation workflows are often a better fit when teams require evidence, ongoing monitoring and coordinated developer fixes.

Support levels, SLAs and the availability of dedicated accessibility specialists depend on the purchased plan. Buyers should request details about support response times, remediation turnaround and the involvement of human testers in the service level documentation.

Which one is right for you?

Choose UserWay if:

• You need a low-friction way to add an accessibility interface to a site quickly.
• Your priority is automated scanning for basic issues and a self-serve model.
• You have developer capacity to perform manual testing and implement fixes not covered by automation.

Choose AudioEye if:

• You need a managed accessibility programme with ongoing monitoring and remediation tracking.
• Your organisation requires enterprise features such as governance dashboards, reporting for compliance programmes, or a vendor that coordinates developer fixes.
• You prefer a single-vendor service that combines automation with human remediation for higher-risk websites.

Verdict

Both UserWay and AudioEye serve legitimate accessibility needs but target different buyer priorities. UserWay is strong for fast deployment and simple automated coverage; AudioEye is stronger where an organisation needs continuous monitoring, managed remediation and enterprise governance. Neither solution removes the need for manual testing or developer remediation to meet WCAG requirements; buyers should choose based on the level of managed service and reporting they require.

FAQs

Does an accessibility widget make my site WCAG-compliant?

No. A widget can improve usability and address some detectable issues, but it cannot ensure full WCAG compliance. Manual testing and developer fixes remain necessary.

Which provider is better for a public sector body in the UK?

Public sector bodies that need documented audits, evidence trails and remediation should prioritise a provider offering managed services, continuous monitoring and enterprise reporting—confirm these features directly with the vendor.

Will these tools fix all accessibility issues automatically?

No. Automated tools identify many technical issues, but complex problems (logical structure, meaningful alt text, keyboard focus order, authoring issues) typically require human review and code changes.

How should we evaluate pricing and contracts?

Request a written scope that lists scans per month, remediation hours, support SLAs, reporting capabilities and termination clauses. Compare total cost of ownership including developer time for fixes not covered by automation.

Can we trial either service?

Many vendors offer free trials or demo accounts; ask for a trial that includes scanning of representative pages and access to reporting so you can assess accuracy and workflow fit.

What evidence should we ask for during procurement?

Ask for sample reports, details of monitoring frequency, statements on what is automated vs manual, case studies from similar organisations and any available conformance documentation. Remember that VPATs or conformance statements are a starting point, not proof of full compliance.

Note: This comparison explains typical differences between UserWay and AudioEye based on publicly available product positioning and common buyer experiences. Specific features, pricing and support terms vary by vendor plan and change over time; verify details directly with each provider before purchasing.