Comparison
Tool, agency or in-house: how to get compliant
Three ways to run your accessibility compliance: in-house, through an agency, or with a tool. Cost, speed and fit.
Beyond the technical method lies an organisational question: who does the work? Three models exist, and the right one depends on your size, budget and internal skills.
The three models
- In-house: your team learns WCAG and fixes issues itself. Full control, but a learning curve and time invested.
- Specialised agency: a provider audits and fixes. Strong expertise, but higher cost and external dependency.
- Self-service tool: you measure, understand and track compliance autonomously, at a controlled cost.
Comparison
| Model | Cost | Start-up speed | For whom |
|---|---|---|---|
| In-house | Internal time | Slow at first | Tooled technical teams |
| Agency | High | Depends on the agency | One-off projects, large sites |
| Self-service tool | Controlled | Immediate | SMBs, agencies, product teams |
The hybrid model, often the most effective
Many combine: a tool for the baseline, follow-up and statement, and human expertise (in-house or agency) for complex fixes and non-automatable criteria. The tool keeps things on track day to day; humans step in where judgement is required.
Sources
- W3C Web Accessibility Initiative, WCAG 2.2 (w3.org/WAI).
- EN 301 549, European standard for accessibility of ICT products and services.
Frequently asked questions
Does a tool replace an agency?
For the baseline, follow-up and statement, yes. For very specific fixes or expert validation, humans remain useful. The two combine well.
Which model for an SMB?
A self-service tool is often the best starting point: controlled cost, immediate start, and the option to call on occasional expertise if needed.
Related definitions
Read next
Start with a free scan
Get your accessibility score, your priority issues and the missing statement in seconds.
Scan my site