UserWay vs accessiBe vs AudioEye: Which Overlay Should You Choose?

Comparing UserWay vs accessiBe vs AudioEye reveals a challenging truth: despite different marketing approaches and pricing structures, all three overlay solutions share the same fundamental technical limitations. Over 800 businesses using overlay solutions faced accessibility lawsuits in 2023-2024. The FTC fined accessiBe $1 million in January 2025 for deceptive marketing about WCAG compliance capabilities. The National Federation of the Blind formally opposes all overlay approaches. If you're evaluating these three options, understanding what they can and cannot do—and what alternatives actually work—is critical for protecting your business and serving users with disabilities.

Key Takeaways

This comparison explains why choosing between overlays may be the wrong question entirely.

• All three overlays use JavaScript injection to modify runtime page behavior, sharing the same fundamental technical limitations
• Over 800 businesses using overlay solutions faced accessibility lawsuits in 2023-2024, regardless of which overlay they used
• The FTC's $1 million fine against accessiBe applies equally to similar claims made by UserWay and AudioEye
• Courts consistently reject overlay installation as evidence of good-faith compliance efforts
• Source code remediation remains the only approach proven to achieve lasting WCAG compliance without ongoing litigation risk

Company Overview

Understanding each company's positioning helps explain their marketing differences despite technological similarities.

UserWay

UserWay, founded in 2016, positions itself as an "AI-powered accessibility solution." Key claims include:

• Automated accessibility scanning and remediation
• AI technology that identifies and fixes issues
• Accessibility widget for user customization
• Monitoring and compliance reporting

UserWay targets small to mid-sized businesses with an affordable entry point and scales to enterprise offerings.

accessiBe

accessiBe, founded in 2018 in Israel, gained rapid market share through aggressive marketing. Following the January 2025 FTC action, key facts include:

• $1 million FTC fine for deceptive compliance claims
• AI-powered overlay technology
• Accessibility widget with personalization features
• Controversy over automated compliance claims

accessiBe raised significant venture capital and pursued aggressive growth before regulatory scrutiny intensified.

AudioEye

AudioEye, founded in 2005 and publicly traded (NASDAQ: AEYE), positions as a hybrid solution:

• JavaScript overlay technology
• Managed remediation services with human experts
• Legal protection programs
• Enterprise and small business offerings

AudioEye attempts to differentiate by combining overlays with some manual remediation, though the overlay component shares the same limitations as competitors.

Technical Approach Comparison

All three solutions rely on the same fundamental technology: JavaScript injection that modifies pages at runtime.

How Overlays Work

The basic overlay approach is identical across all three:

1. Website owner adds JavaScript snippet to their pages
2. On page load, overlay script scans the DOM
3. Script attempts to modify elements for accessibility
4. Widget loads allowing users to adjust display settings
5. Modifications exist only in browser memory

What this means technically:

<!-- Original source code (inaccessible): -->
<img src="product.jpg">
<div onclick="buy()">Add to Cart</div>
<p style="color: #aaa">Sale price: $29.99</p>

<!-- What overlays TRY to modify at runtime: -->
<img src="product.jpg" alt="[AI-generated text]">
<div onclick="buy()" role="button" tabindex="0">Add to Cart</div>
<p style="color: #595959">Sale price: $29.99</p>

<!-- But if overlay fails to load, users get: -->
<img src="product.jpg">  <!-- No alt text -->
<div onclick="buy()">Add to Cart</div>  <!-- No keyboard access -->
<p style="color: #aaa">Sale price: $29.99</p>  <!-- Poor contrast -->

UserWay Technical Implementation

UserWay's approach centers on:

• Widget injection: Accessibility toolbar with multiple adjustment options
• Automated modifications: JavaScript attempts to add ARIA labels, adjust colors, modify focus handling
• AI scanning: Automated issue detection (accuracy disputed by accessibility experts)
• Runtime dependency: All fixes require UserWay script to load successfully

accessiBe Technical Implementation

accessiBe claims:

• Machine learning: AI that "learns" page structure (specific capabilities disputed)
• Automated remediation: Claims to fix issues automatically without human intervention
• 24-hour compliance: Marketing claims rapid full compliance (directly contradicted by FTC findings)
• Widget customization: Similar personalization features to competitors

The FTC action specifically found that accessiBe's technology cannot deliver the compliance levels claimed.

AudioEye Technical Implementation

AudioEye positions as more comprehensive:

• Hybrid approach: Overlay technology plus managed remediation services
• Human review: Accessibility experts supplement automated fixes
• Monitoring: Ongoing scanning and alerting
• Legal services: Some plans include legal support

Despite the hybrid positioning, AudioEye customers have faced lawsuits because the overlay component shares the same limitations—and manual remediation does not fix the underlying source code.

Feature Comparison

Despite similar technology, feature sets differ in emphasis and pricing.

Core Features

+--------------------------+----------------+-----------------------+------------------------+
|         Feature          |    UserWay     |       accessiBe       |        AudioEye        |
+--------------------------+----------------+-----------------------+------------------------+
|    JavaScript overlay    |      Yes       |          Yes          |          Yes           |
+--------------------------+----------------+-----------------------+------------------------+
|   Accessibility widget   |      Yes       |          Yes          |          Yes           |
+--------------------------+----------------+-----------------------+------------------------+
|    Automated scanning    |      Yes       |          Yes          |          Yes           |
+--------------------------+----------------+-----------------------+------------------------+
|    Manual remediation    |    Limited     |           No          |   Yes (higher tiers)   |
+--------------------------+----------------+-----------------------+------------------------+
|   Monitoring dashboard   |      Yes       |          Yes          |          Yes           |
+--------------------------+----------------+-----------------------+------------------------+
|     VPAT generation      |   Some plans   |   Claims (disputed)   |       Some plans       |
+--------------------------+----------------+-----------------------+------------------------+
|      Legal support       |    Limited     |   Claims (disputed)   |       Some plans       |
+--------------------------+----------------+-----------------------+------------------------+

Widget Features

+--------------------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+
|      Widget Feature      |   UserWay   |   accessiBe   |   AudioEye   |
+--------------------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+
|   Font size adjustment   |     Yes     |      Yes      |     Yes      |
+--------------------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+
|   Color contrast modes   |     Yes     |      Yes      |     Yes      |
+--------------------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+
|    Cursor enhancement    |     Yes     |      Yes      |     Yes      |
+--------------------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+
|    Link highlighting     |     Yes     |      Yes      |     Yes      |
+--------------------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+
|      Reading guide       |     Yes     |      Yes      |     Some     |
+--------------------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+
|    Screen reader mode    |     Yes     |      Yes      |     Yes      |
+--------------------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+
|     Animation pause      |     Yes     |      Yes      |     Yes      |
+--------------------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+

These widget features share a fundamental problem: they assume users need these modifications rather than fixing the underlying website. Most features duplicate functionality already available in browsers and operating systems.

Detection Capabilities

+-------------------------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+
|           Detection           |   UserWay   |   accessiBe   |   AudioEye   |
+-------------------------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+
|        Missing alt text       |     Yes     |      Yes      |     Yes      |
+-------------------------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+
|     Color contrast issues     |     Yes     |      Yes      |     Yes      |
+-------------------------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+
|      Form label problems      |   Partial   |    Partial    |   Partial    |
+-------------------------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+
|       Heading structure       |   Partial   |    Partial    |   Partial    |
+-------------------------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+
|     Keyboard accessibility    |   Limited   |    Limited    |   Limited    |
+-------------------------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+
|      ARIA implementation      |   Limited   |    Limited    |   Limited    |
+-------------------------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+
|       PDF accessibility       |      No     |       No      |   Limited    |
+-------------------------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+
|   Third-party widget issues   |      No     |       No      |   Limited    |
+-------------------------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+

All three detect similar basic issues but struggle with structural problems that require human judgment or source code access.

Pricing Comparison

Pricing structures vary, but all require ongoing subscription.

UserWay Pricing

+----------------+-----------------------------+---------------------------------+
|      Plan      |   Approximate Annual Cost   |             Features            |
+----------------+-----------------------------+---------------------------------+
|    Personal    |             Free            |        Basic widget only        |
+----------------+-----------------------------+---------------------------------+
|    Business    |          $490-$990          |   Full widget, basic scanning   |
+----------------+-----------------------------+---------------------------------+
|    Advanced    |        $1,490-$2,490        |    Enhanced scanning, support   |
+----------------+-----------------------------+---------------------------------+
|   Enterprise   |            Custom           |    Volume licensing, services   |
+----------------+-----------------------------+---------------------------------+

accessiBe Pricing

+------------------+-----------------------------+--------------------------------------+
|       Plan       |   Approximate Annual Cost   |               Features               |
+------------------+-----------------------------+--------------------------------------+
|     Standard     |             $490            |   Single domain, standard features   |
+------------------+-----------------------------+--------------------------------------+
|   Professional   |         $990-$1,490         |     Enhanced scanning, priority      |
+------------------+-----------------------------+--------------------------------------+
|    Enterprise    |            Custom           |    Multi-domain, custom features     |
+------------------+-----------------------------+--------------------------------------+

Note: accessiBe's refund program following the FTC action may affect current pricing and terms.

AudioEye Pricing

+------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------------------+
|       Plan       |   Approximate Annual Cost   |             Features             |
+------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------------------+
|    Site Scan     |        $1,800-$3,600        |   Testing and monitoring only    |
+------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------------------+
|     Standard     |        $3,600-$6,000        |     Overlay plus monitoring      |
+------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------------------+
|   Professional   |       $10,000-$25,000       |   Managed remediation included   |
+------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------------------+
|    Enterprise    |      $25,000-$100,000+      |   Custom scope, legal support    |
+------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------------------+

AudioEye's higher pricing reflects their hybrid approach, though customers still face lawsuit risk.

True Cost Analysis

Subscription costs represent only part of the picture:

+--------------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
|       Cost Factor        |                 All Three Overlays                |
+--------------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
|   Annual subscription    |                   $490-$100,000+                  |
+--------------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
|       Lawsuit risk       |       Over 800 overlay users sued 2023-2024       |
+--------------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
|    Average settlement    |                 $20,000-$100,000+                 |
+--------------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
|    Reputation damage     |   Significant (disability community opposition)   |
+--------------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
|        Exit cost         |     All fixes disappear when subscription ends    |
+--------------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
|   Long-term dependency   |             Perpetual payment required            |
+--------------------------+---------------------------------------------------+

The Lawsuit Problem

All three overlays share the same legal vulnerability.

2023-2024 Lawsuit Statistics

Over 800 businesses using overlay solutions faced accessibility lawsuits in this period. Key patterns:

• Overlay presence did not prevent filing: Plaintiffs' attorneys specifically target overlay users
• Overlay presence did not prevent judgment: Courts have ruled against businesses using overlays
• Good faith defense rejected: Installing an overlay does not constitute good-faith compliance efforts
• Testing methodology: Plaintiffs disable overlays to reveal underlying accessibility failures

Court Statements on Overlays

Multiple federal courts have addressed overlay solutions:

• Overlays do not fix underlying accessibility issues in source code
• Testing with overlays disabled reveals the true accessibility status
• Installing an overlay is not evidence of genuine accessibility commitment
• Compliance claims from overlay vendors are not binding in litigation

Specific Company Mentions in Litigation

All three companies have been mentioned in accessibility lawsuits:

• UserWay: Customers sued despite UserWay installation
• accessiBe: Frequently named in lawsuits; FTC action now provides additional plaintiff ammunition
• AudioEye: Customers sued despite AudioEye installation and managed services

What Accessibility Experts Say

The disability community and accessibility professionals have reached consensus on overlays.

National Federation of the Blind

The NFB formally opposes overlay solutions. Their position:

• Overlays make websites harder to use, not easier
• Widgets interfere with assistive technologies users already have
• Marketing claims mislead businesses into false confidence
• The approach prioritizes appearance over actual accessibility

The NFB specifically criticized accessiBe and called for businesses to remove overlay solutions.

Overlay False Claims Statement

Over 600 accessibility professionals signed a statement declaring:

> "Overlay solutions do not meet the legal requirements for accessibility, do not provide the level of accessibility needed for people with disabilities, and in many cases make accessibility worse."

All three companies—UserWay, accessiBe, and AudioEye—fall under this criticism.

WebAIM Survey Results

WebAIM surveyed screen reader users about overlays. Key findings:

• Over 70% of respondents found overlays made sites harder to use
• Many users immediately try to disable overlay widgets when encountered
• Features like "screen reader mode" often conflict with actual screen readers
• Users prefer websites that work natively rather than requiring adjustment tools

Why Source Code Remediation Is Different

Understanding the alternative helps contextualize why overlays fail.

The Fundamental Difference

+----------------------+---------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
|        Aspect        |   Overlays (UserWay, accessiBe, AudioEye)   |    Source Code Remediation     |
+----------------------+---------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
|   Where fixes live   |            Browser runtime memory           |     Your actual code files     |
+----------------------+---------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
|     Persistence      |            Gone when script fails           |           Permanent            |
+----------------------+---------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
|     Testability      |           Requires overlay active           |     Standard testing works     |
+----------------------+---------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
|    Legal evidence    |              Rejected by courts             |   Accepted as genuine effort   |
+----------------------+---------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
|   User experience    |          Widgets and modifications          |       Native, consistent       |
+----------------------+---------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
|    Long-term cost    |            Perpetual subscription           |      Decreasing over time      |
+----------------------+---------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
|    Exit strategy     |               Lose everything               |        Keep your fixes         |
+----------------------+---------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+

How Source Code Remediation Works

Instead of runtime JavaScript manipulation:

HTML is fixed: ```html <!-- Before: --> <img src="hero.jpg">

<!-- After source code remediation: --> <img src="hero.jpg" alt="Professional team collaborating in modern office"> ```

CSS is fixed: ```css / Before: / .subtle-text { color: #aaaaaa; }

/ After source code remediation: / .subtle-text { color: #767676; } ```

JavaScript is fixed: ```javascript // Before: mouse-only interaction card.addEventListener('click', expand);

// After source code remediation: full keyboard support card.addEventListener('click', expand); card.addEventListener('keydown', (e) => { if (e.key === 'Enter' || e.key === ' ') expand(e); }); card.setAttribute('tabindex', '0'); card.setAttribute('role', 'button'); ```

These changes exist in your actual files. They work regardless of network conditions, browser settings, or third-party scripts.

TestParty: The Source Code Approach

TestParty represents the source code remediation approach:

• Identifies accessibility issues through comprehensive scanning
• Generates actual code changes for HTML, CSS, and JavaScript
• Integrates directly with Shopify, WordPress, and custom platforms
• Fixes persist without ongoing scripts or subscriptions
• Zero TestParty customers have been sued for accessibility violations

Unlike choosing between UserWay, accessiBe, and AudioEye, choosing source code remediation represents a fundamentally different approach with different outcomes.

Making the Right Decision

If you're evaluating UserWay vs accessiBe vs AudioEye, consider reframing the question.

Questions to Ask

1. Does this approach actually fix my source code?

- UserWay: No - accessiBe: No - AudioEye: Partially (at highest tiers, some manual work) - Source code remediation: Yes

1. Will my site be accessible if the vendor's script fails?

- UserWay: No - accessiBe: No - AudioEye: No - Source code remediation: Yes

1. Will courts accept this as evidence of compliance efforts?

- UserWay: No (overlay rejected) - accessiBe: No (FTC action compounds problems) - AudioEye: No (overlay component rejected) - Source code remediation: Yes

1. What do disability advocates recommend?

- UserWay: Opposed - accessiBe: Opposed - AudioEye: Opposed - Source code remediation: Endorsed

The Real Choice

The decision is not which overlay to choose—it's whether to use overlays at all. Given:

• 800+ lawsuits against overlay users in 2023-2024
• FTC enforcement action against accessiBe
• NFB formal opposition to all overlays
• Court rejections of overlay-based defenses
• Technical limitations preventing actual remediation

The evidence strongly supports source code remediation over any overlay approach.

Migration Path

If you're currently using UserWay, accessiBe, or AudioEye, here's how to transition.

Step 1: Assess Current State

Test your website with the overlay disabled:

1. Use browser DevTools to block the overlay script
2. Run accessibility testing (axe DevTools, WAVE, Lighthouse)
3. Document all issues revealed
4. Compare to your overlay vendor's claims

Most organizations discover significant accessibility failures persist despite overlay installation.

Step 2: Prioritize Issues

Categorize findings by business impact:

+--------------+----------------------------+------------------------------+
|   Priority   |         Issue Type         |          Legal Risk          |
+--------------+----------------------------+------------------------------+
|   Critical   |   Blocks core functions    |   High (triggers lawsuits)   |
+--------------+----------------------------+------------------------------+
|     High     |   Common lawsuit targets   |             High             |
+--------------+----------------------------+------------------------------+
|    Medium    |      WCAG AA failures      |           Moderate           |
+--------------+----------------------------+------------------------------+
|    Lower     |        Enhancements        |            Lower             |
+--------------+----------------------------+------------------------------+

Step 3: Implement Source Code Fixes

Address issues through actual code changes:

• Use source code remediation tools like TestParty
• Engage accessibility consultants for complex issues
• Train development team on accessibility
• Build accessibility into your workflow

Step 4: Remove Overlay

Once source code fixes are verified:

1. Confirm accessibility without overlay active
2. Remove overlay JavaScript
3. Test again to verify no regression
4. Update accessibility statement

Step 5: Maintain Compliance

Establish ongoing processes:

• Automated testing in development
• Accessibility review for new content
• Regular audits of new features
• Training for content creators

Frequently Asked Questions

Which overlay is best for WCAG compliance?

None of them achieve WCAG compliance reliably. All three use the same fundamental approach—JavaScript runtime modification—which cannot fix structural accessibility issues. The FTC fine against accessiBe demonstrates that compliance claims from overlay vendors are not reliable. Source code remediation is the only approach that achieves verifiable, lasting WCAG compliance.

Is AudioEye better because it includes manual remediation?

AudioEye's hybrid approach provides some advantages at higher price points, but manual remediation typically does not fix your source code. AudioEye's team may improve accessibility while you're a customer, but much of their work exists in their overlay layer, not your codebase. AudioEye customers have faced lawsuits despite the hybrid approach.

What about accessiBe after the FTC fine?

The FTC action significantly damages accessiBe's market position. Key implications: compliance claims are officially discredited, customers may have legal exposure for relying on false claims, and plaintiffs' attorneys now have regulatory findings to cite. Organizations using accessiBe should transition to source code remediation promptly.

Are overlays completely useless?

Overlays provide some accessibility improvements for some issues. However, these improvements exist only when scripts load correctly, cannot fix structural problems, and do not provide legal protection. The limited benefits do not outweigh the costs, legal risks, and opposition from the disability community.

How do I convince my organization to switch?

Key arguments: FTC enforcement action proves overlay claims are false; 800+ lawsuits show overlays do not provide legal protection; NFB opposition represents the disability community's clear position; source code fixes are permanent while overlays require perpetual payment; courts reject overlays as compliance evidence.

What do I do if I'm sued while using an overlay?

Consult with legal counsel immediately. Key points: the overlay does not provide a defense; your website's accessibility should be tested without the overlay; you may need to implement rapid source code remediation; documentation of good-faith efforts (beyond overlay installation) becomes critical.

Related Resources

• accessiBe Alternatives: What Actually Works in 2026
• AudioEye Alternatives 2026: Honest Comparison Guide
• Do Accessibility Overlays Work? The Evidence
• Website Accessibility Remediation: Complete Process Guide
• WCAG 2.2 Compliance Guide: Everything You Need to Know

This article was crafted using a cyborg approach—human expertise enhanced by AI to deliver comprehensive, accurate, and actionable accessibility guidance.