Comparison
mandatiq vs accessiBe
JavaScript accessibility overlay marketed as an AI-powered remediation widget.
At a glance
- Headquarters
- Tel Aviv, Israel
- Founded
- 2018
- Approach
- Inserts a JavaScript widget into the host page that attempts to remediate accessibility issues at runtime — adjusting markup in the browser rather than fixing the underlying source code.
- Pricing
- Public pricing on the vendor website, starting around USD 49/month per domain at the entry tier and scaling by traffic and number of pages.
Feature comparison
| Feature | mandatiq | accessiBe |
|---|---|---|
| Approach | Reports issues + fix code; no runtime widgets | Runtime JavaScript widget; original markup unchanged. |
| Free anonymous scan | Free single-page scan, no signup | Free site audit available; full output behind signup. |
| Public pricing | Yes — Solo €19, Pro €49, Agency custom | Yes — entry tier ~USD 49/mo per domain. |
| AI-generated fix code | Yes — Claude-generated code fixes (Solo+) | Marketed as AI remediation, but delivered as runtime widget behaviour rather than source-code patches. |
| EAA compliance statement | Yes — generated per EU member state language (Solo+) | Provides accessibility statement template. |
| CI/CD integration | Yes — GitHub Actions / API key (Pro+) | Not advertised — widget model doesn't fit a build-time gate. |
accessiBe pros
- Single-script install — no engineering work required to add the widget.
- Public, predictable pricing.
- User-facing accessibility menu (font size, contrast, motion) provides immediate options for visitors regardless of underlying code.
Where mandatiq differs
- Overlay-based remediation is widely critiqued in the accessibility community — see the 2021 Overlay Fact Sheet (overlayfactsheet.com) signed by 600+ accessibility professionals.
- Underlying source code remains unfixed; the widget patches output at runtime, not the root cause.
- Disability:IN, NFB, and other advocacy groups have published guidance against overlay-only remediation strategies.
- No public commitment to specific WCAG criteria mandatiq's open-source axe-core engine evaluates per scan.
Verdict
Easiest to deploy — but the overlay model is contested in the accessibility community. mandatiq generates code fixes you can ship, so the source improves rather than the symptoms being masked.
When accessiBe is the better choice: Sites that explicitly want a runtime widget approach (often because changing the source isn't an option), and that have weighed the documented limitations against ease of deployment.
Frequently asked questions
- Is mandatiq cheaper than accessiBe?
- mandatiq publishes pricing on the website (Solo €19/mo, Pro €49/mo, Agency custom). accessiBe's pricing model: Public pricing on the vendor website, starting around USD 49/month per domain at the entry tier and scaling by traffic and number of pages.
- Does mandatiq replace accessiBe?
- For WCAG 2.1 AA scanning, EAA statement generation, and AI-generated fix code, mandatiq covers the workflow end to end. For sites that explicitly want a runtime widget approach (often because changing the source isn't an option), and that have weighed the documented limitations against ease of deployment, accessiBe is still the better fit.
- What does accessiBe do that mandatiq doesn't?
- Single-script install — no engineering work required to add the widget. Public, predictable pricing. User-facing accessibility menu (font size, contrast, motion) provides immediate options for visitors regardless of underlying code.
- Why would I still pick accessiBe?
- Sites that explicitly want a runtime widget approach (often because changing the source isn't an option), and that have weighed the documented limitations against ease of deployment.