In April 2025, the FTC approved a final consent order requiring accessiBe to pay $1 million for claiming its automated tool could make any website WCAG compliant, including promises of conformance within 48 hours. The order permanently bars accessiBe from making those claims without substantiation. For site owners who built their accessibility strategy around those promises, it raises a straightforward question: what was I actually getting?
These are the conditions that make switching worth evaluating:
|
Feature
|
AccessPro
|
accessiBe
|
|---|---|---|
|
Free plan
|
Yes
|
No
|
|
Free trial
|
Yes, 30 days
|
Yes
|
|
Entry price
|
$59.99/year
|
~$490/year
|
|
Pricing basis
|
Page views
|
Monthly visits via SimilarWeb
|
|
AI image alt text
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
|
Text-to-speech
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
|
Contrast and visual modes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
|
Dyslexia-friendly fonts
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
|
Font size and spacing controls
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
|
Accessibility profiles
|
Yes, 4
|
Yes, 6 profiles
|
|
Animation controls
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
|
33+ languages
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
24-hour automated AI scanning
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
Accessibility statement
|
Template, completed by you
|
Generated and included
|
|
Compliance certification
|
No
|
Yes, higher tiers
|
|
Litigation support package
|
No
|
Yes, higher tiers, $15k pledge
|
|
WCAG version focus
|
2.2 AA
|
2.1 AA
|
|
Source-code remediation
|
Via connected partner team
|
Via accessServices, separate product
|
|
Headquartered
|
Toronto, Canada
|
Tel Aviv, Israel
|
|
AODA-specific support
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Both AccessPro and accessiBe are overlays. Both share the same limitations. Neither can fix broken keyboard navigation in your source code, repair missing ARIA attributes, resolve heading structure problems, or certify WCAG conformance. Those require source-code remediation. A provider that tells you otherwise is making the claim the FTC order specifically prohibits. We think being clear about this makes AccessPro more useful to you, not less.
When evaluating any overlay provider, including us, the single most useful question is whether they claim their product makes your site WCAG compliant. That is the exact language the FTC order identifies as misleading. Look for “designed to support” instead, and ask what the product explicitly cannot do before signing up.
AccessPro, annual billing
|
Plan
|
Price
|
Coverage
|
|---|---|---|
|
Free
|
$0
|
Up to 2,000 page views/month
|
|
Basic
|
$59.99/year
|
Up to 20,000 page views/month
|
|
Standard
|
$99.99/year
|
Up to 50,000 page views/month
|
|
Premium
|
$499.99/year
|
Unlimited
|
accessiBe accessWidget, annual billing
|
Plan
|
Price
|
Coverage
|
|---|---|---|
|
Micro
|
~$490/year
|
Up to 5,000 visits/month
|
|
Growth
|
~$1,490/year
|
Up to 30,000 visits/month
|
|
Scale
|
~$3,990/year
|
Up to 100,000 visits/month
|
|
Enterprise
|
Custom
|
Custom
|
Is AccessPro a direct replacement for accessiBe?
Functionally, both are overlays that add visitor controls. AccessPro does not have 24-hour automated AI scanning or a litigation support package. accessiBe does not have a free plan or a WCAG 2.2 AA primary focus. Whether AccessPro is the right fit depends on what your site actually needs.
Does the FTC order mean accessiBe's product does not work?
No. The order was about the claims made around the product, not the product itself. accessiBe's overlay adds user-facing accessibility controls. What it cannot do, and what no overlay can do, is make a site fully WCAG conformant on its own.
Can AccessPro protect me from an ADA or AODA lawsuit?
Not on its own. No single tool provides legal protection. What reduces risk is a combination: source-code remediation, a user-facing toolbar, a completed accessibility statement, and documented good-faith effort. For legal advice specific to your situation, speak with a qualified attorney.
Where can I see exactly what AccessPro says it does and does not do?
Our overlay transparency page covers this in full, including the limitations we share with every other overlay on the market.
