Certvo vs accessiBe: which actually makes you compliant?

What accessiBe does well

• Quick to install (one script tag)

• Adds visible widget UI for end users

Where accessiBe falls short

Every accessibility vendor has a target customer and a target solution. accessiBe's shape works for some teams and badly for others. The points below come up most often when buyers move off accessiBe and what they wish they had asked sooner.

• US courts have ruled overlays do not produce ADA compliance

• accessiBe itself has been a defendant in lawsuits

• Does not modify your source HTML — issues remain for crawlers, AI, and many AT users

• Charges per-domain, indefinitely

Why teams pick Certvo instead

• Audits and produces fixable code; you fix the source, not paper over it

• AI-generated patches reviewable in PR

• EAA, WCAG 2.1 AA, EN 301 549 mapped per-issue

• Free public scan, no install

When you should still pick the other tool

Bluntly: if the only thing you need is a visible widget on your site (e.g. as part of a settlement consent decree that names a specific overlay product), an overlay vendor is the path of least resistance. Certvo does not ship a widget. We give you patches; the widget is only a UI for the audit.

If you have an enterprise procurement process that already has a long-running contract with a competitor and the buying motion would take six months to switch, you can use Certvo alongside as the audit-and-fix tool while the widget keeps sitting on the page.

Frequently asked questions

Other comparisons