Enter a web address. We load the page in a real browser, run the automatable WCAG 2.2 AA checks and show you the findings in about 30 seconds – no account, no email, no script on your site. We also tell you plainly which requirements no tool can decide on its own, and how to check them yourself.
What this pass runs
- Rendering your page in a real browser
- The WCAG 2.2 AA rules from axe-core
- Colour contrast on every piece of text
- Headings, landmarks, names and roles
- Reading level and content quality
Request your free scan
One form, a few fields. The report comes by email, usually within the hour; a person replies within one working day.
What the free checker tests
The quick check covers exactly one page – the one you enter:
- Real rendering: the page loads in Chromium, including JavaScript, web fonts and lazy-loaded content. We test what people actually see, not just the source.
- WCAG 2.2 A and AA rules: every applicable axe-core rule runs, and each result is mapped to a WCAG success criterion.
- Colour contrast for every piece of text, measured against its real background (1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum)).
- Structure and semantics: headings, landmarks, page language and title, and the names and roles of links, buttons and form fields.
What a finding looks like
Each finding tells you what is wrong, where, and who it affects:
Text has insufficient contrast · WCAG 1.4.3 (AA) · Severity: serious
Element: <span class="price-old">€49.00</span>
Measured: 2.77:1 (text #9b9b9b on #ffffff) · Required: 4.5:1
Who it affects: people with low vision, older users, anyone reading a phone in sunlight.
Suggestion: #767676 reaches 4.54:1 with the same hue.
To see a full report with keyboard trail, WCAG coverage and EN 301 549 mapping, open the sample report.
What no automated checker can decide
No tool can call a website "accessible" on its own. In our classification of the 55 WCAG 2.2 A and AA success criteria, a tool can fully decide 4, partly decide 20 and cannot decide 31. The reasoning per criterion is in our WCAG 2.2 checklist.
A few examples that need human judgement:
- Alt text: a tool knows whether an image has alt text, not whether "IMG_4711.jpg" describes it.
- Headings: their presence is testable; whether they structure the content sensibly is not.
- Form errors: whether a message explains how to fix the problem.
- Captions and audio description: whether they exist, are complete and in sync.
- Focus order: whether tabbing through the page follows a logical sequence.
That is why our results have three states, not two: failed, partly tested and untested. Untested never means passed. Checks that can't reach a verdict – text over a photo, for instance – go into a separate "potential issues" list instead of silently counting as a pass.
The keyboard agent: the part most checkers skip
Many people use websites without a mouse – with a keyboard, switches or voice control. Whether that works isn't visible in the code. Someone has to try it.
Our keyboard agent does exactly that. It presses real keys – Tab, Shift+Tab, Enter, Space, Escape – along a journey through your site, say from the home page to the basket, and records every keystroke:
| # | Key | Focus on | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Tab | Link "Skip to content" | Focus visible ✓ |
| 2 | Enter | Main content | Target reached ✓ |
| 3 | Tab | Button (no name) | Focus invisible ✗ 2.4.7 |
| 4 | Tab ×12 | Date picker | Escape doesn't close, focus trapped ✗ 2.1.2 |
It reports unreachable elements, focus that disappears, focus without a visible indicator, missing skip links and keyboard traps – each with a screenshot at the point of failure, so you can walk the same path yourself.
The keyboard agent runs on one journey of your choice in the free full report. Other agents, such as screen reader or zoom, are in development and not yet available.
Free full report: up to 100 pages plus a keyboard run
One page shows you a direction. For a reliable picture you need more. We'll email you the full report for free:
- Up to 100 pages of your site, discovered and checked automatically
- One keyboard run along a journey you name (e.g. "home → product → basket")
- WCAG coverage per criterion: passed, failed, partial, untested
- A task list ranked by impact per hour of work
Request your free scan
Check it yourself in 15 minutes
Add five manual checks to the automated test. All you need is your browser.
- Keyboard: put the mouse away and press Tab from top to bottom. Can you always see where you are? Can you reach the menu, search, forms and basket? Does Escape get you out of every dialog?
- Zoom: zoom to 200 %, then 400 % (roughly a 320-pixel-wide viewport). Does text overlap? Do you have to scroll sideways to read a paragraph?
- Images: read the alt texts (or switch images off in dev tools). Is any information only in the image?
- Forms: submit a form empty. Is it clear which field is wrong and why – not just a red border?
- Screen reader spot check: turn on VoiceOver (macOS: Cmd+F5) or NVDA (Windows, free). Listen to the navigation and one button. Does each element make sense?
Record what you find. In a Reviseberg account, guided manual tests walk you through these checks step by step and keep the results as evidence.
Does an online check meet the European Accessibility Act?
Since 28 June 2025, many consumer services in the EU – online shops and other e-commerce services, banking, transport booking, e-books, telecoms – must be accessible under the European Accessibility Act (Directive (EU) 2019/882) and the national laws implementing it, such as Germany's BFSG. Our EAA applicability check tells you in two minutes whether that includes you.
An online check alone doesn't meet any obligation. What it gives you is evidence: what was tested, when, and with what result. You need that evidence to write honest accessibility information – our accessibility statement generator helps. The practical benchmark is the European standard EN 301 549, whose web chapter points to WCAG. More in our BFSG & EAA overview.
Automated check, audit or overlay?
| Automated check | Manual expert audit | Overlay widget | |
|---|---|---|---|
| What happens | A tool tests code and rendered output | Experts assess every criterion, including with assistive tech | A script adds a toolbar on top of the page |
| Strength | Fast, repeatable, finds common failures across many pages | Covers every criterion, including meaning and clarity | Quick to install |
| Limit | Can't decide many criteria | Costly, a snapshot in time | Doesn't fix the barriers in your code |
| Evidence of conformance? | Partial | Yes, for the tested state | No |
The European Disability Forum and the IAAP stated jointly in 2023 that overlays do not make a website accessible or compliant with European legislation [4]. In the US, overlay vendor accessiBe was ordered by the FTC in 2025 to pay $1 million over deceptive claims [5]. Reviseberg never injects a script into your site. We find barriers so your team can fix them in the code.
The combination that works: automate what can be automated, on every page, on a schedule. Test the rest by hand and record the result. That's what the Reviseberg platform is built for.
Privacy
For the quick check we store the address you tested and the result. No sign-up, nothing installed on your site, all processing in the EU. We load the page as an anonymous visitor would see it; pages behind a login aren't part of the free check.