accessiBe alternative
Find and fix the real failures, instead of hiding them
accessiBe's widget adjusts how your site looks in the visitor's browser. The WCAG failures stay in your code. BugPort takes the other road: scan your site, turn every real failure into a ticket with element-level evidence, and keep the re-scan history that shows the work.
5,000+ digital accessibility lawsuits were filed in 2025.
UsableNet tracked 95 to 155 monthly filings against sites running accessibility widgets, every month, all year. Their words: no meaningful reduction. A widget on the page didn't slow the plaintiffs down.
How BugPort replaces the widget
No script tag, no floating icon. BugPort works on your code, not on your visitors' browsers.
Scan your site
We scan your key pages in a real browser and check them against WCAG 2.1 and 2.2 success criteria. Real failures, not a vague score.
Get tickets with evidence
Each finding becomes a ticket with the violated criterion, severity, and the exact element affected. Send it straight to Linear or GitHub and your team fixes it at the source.
Re-scan and keep the record
Re-scans confirm what's fixed and log it. Over time you build a scan, fix, re-scan history: a remediation record you can actually show someone.
BugPort vs the accessiBe widget
This isn't a feature-for-feature race. The two products take opposite approaches: BugPort finds failures in your code so your team can fix them there. accessWidget applies adjustments in the visitor's browser and leaves the code as it was.
| Feature | BugPort | accessiBe widget |
|---|---|---|
| Finds real WCAG failures in your code (accessiBe: accessScan does not remediate) | ✓ | Partial. Scanner add-ons available |
| Fixes applied at the source, in your code (accessiBe: accessWidget) | ✓ | No. Adjustments run in the visitor's browser session |
| Works without a JavaScript widget on your page (accessiBe: accessWidget) | ✓ | ✗ |
| Evidence trail for legal defense (scan, fix, re-scan history) (Murphy v. Eyebobs, W.D. Pa. 2021) | ✓ | ✗ |
| Turns findings into tickets (Linear, GitHub) (accessiBe: accessWidget) | ✓ | ✗ |
| Claims of automatic compliance (FTC final order, April 2025) | Never. We don't claim compliance | FTC ordered accessiBe to pay $1M over its compliance claims |
| On-demand human accessibility experts (accessiBe: accessWidget) | Hire vetted a11y experts from the same workspace | ✗ |
| Pricing model (accessiBe pricing) | Free to start; Team $49/mo flat, unlimited seats | Per-domain subscription priced by monthly traffic |
Vendor details verified from the linked sources, July 2026. accessiBe disputed the FTC's characterizations and said it settled to avoid a lengthy legal process.
Keep comparing
Simple plans, no traffic meter
accessiBe prices by your monthly traffic. BugPort is free to start with one flat $49/mo Team plan — never metered by traffic or seats — and the free scan costs nothing.
Frequently asked questions
Is an overlay ever enough?
Honestly, it can help some users. Some people like the display adjustments a widget offers: bigger text, different contrast, a reading mask. But the widget doesn't fix the WCAG failures sitting in your markup, and sites running widgets keep getting sued. UsableNet counted 95 to 155 monthly filings against widget-equipped sites through 2025, with no meaningful reduction (blog.usablenet.com/ada-web-lawsuit-trends-2026). Treat an overlay as a user preference layer, not as a fix.
What happened between accessiBe and the FTC?
In April 2025 the FTC finalized an order requiring accessiBe to pay $1 million. The FTC alleged that claims accessWidget could make any website WCAG-compliant were false, misleading, or unsubstantiated, and that accessiBe formatted paid reviews as independent opinions (ftc.gov, case 2223156). The order also bars unsubstantiated claims that automated products can make a site WCAG-compliant. For fairness: accessiBe disputed the FTC's characterizations and said it settled to avoid a lengthy legal process.
When is accessiBe the better choice?
If what you want is a visitor-facing menu of display adjustments, profiles, contrast, text sizing, on top of a site your team already keeps accessible, accessiBe's widget does that and BugPort doesn't. Used that way it's a supplement for user preferences, and that's fine. Just don't make it your compliance strategy. Note that accessiBe's own docs say its accessScan tool audits but does not remediate accessibility errors.
Does BugPort make my site WCAG-compliant?
No, and we won't claim that. Be wary of anyone who does; the FTC's 2025 order bars exactly that kind of unsubstantiated claim. What BugPort gives you is the honest version: a scan that finds real failures against WCAG 2.1 and 2.2, the standard ADA.gov points to, tickets your team can fix, and a re-scan history that shows the work.
How does the free scan work?
Drop in your URL and your work email. We scan your key pages in a real browser, map each failure to its WCAG criterion with the affected element, and email you the report, usually within one business day. No account, no widget pitch at the end.
See what the widget can't fix on your site
Enter your URL and we'll email you a free WCAG 2.1 AA report of the real failures on your key pages.
One report, no spam.