The verified accessibility-audit market, by the evidence
Updated 2026-08-08 · computed from 245 catalog records
Who is listed across 19 countries, by what proof, and what we could and could not verify — read directly from the 245 records in the Verscala catalog.
What this is. An analysis of the Verscala catalog as a dataset: who is listed, where they are based, which standards they name, and — the part most directories skip — what independent evidence backs each listing.
What this is not. It is not a ranking or accessibility score of anyone’s website. We have no scan corpus of third-party sites, so there are no site scores here to invent. Every figure below is counted from our own records and is only as complete as the catalog itself.
The catalog at a glance
Where the specialists are based
Headquarters country of each listing. The market the catalog has reached so far is concentrated in the EAA/BFSG and US-Section-508 economies — Germany and the United States lead, with Poland, France, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands close behind.
| Germany | 40 |
|---|---|
| United States | 40 |
| Poland | 29 |
| France | 28 |
| United Kingdom | 25 |
| Netherlands | 25 |
| Austria | 9 |
| Spain | 9 |
| Ireland | 8 |
| Belgium | 7 |
| Italy | 5 |
| Denmark | 4 |
| Australia | 3 |
| Canada | 3 |
| Sweden | 3 |
| Finland | 2 |
| India | 2 |
| Norway | 2 |
| Switzerland | 1 |
By which standard they work
Standards each specialist declares it audits against (a listing can name several). WCAG 2.2 is the near-universal baseline; the European harmonised standard EN 301 549 and the EAA follow, reflecting where regulatory demand is sharpest.
| WCAG 2.2 | 152 |
|---|---|
| EN 301 549 | 99 |
| European Accessibility Act | 57 |
| BITV 2.0 | 41 |
| ADA | 35 |
| RGAA | 31 |
| Section 508 | 29 |
By what evidence they are listed
A directory is only as trustworthy as the proof behind each entry. The strongest evidence we record is being named as the auditor in someone else’s published accessibility statement — evidence that lives on a third party’s domain, not the agency’s own. 96 of 245 listings carry exactly that.
| Named in a published statement | 96 |
|---|---|
| BIK BITV-Test Prüfstelle | 19 |
| IAAP organisational member | 8 |
| DHS Trusted Tester | 0 |
| IAAP-certified staff | 0 |
Who published that statement
For the 96 named-auditor statements, we record who declared it — because “a public body named them” and “a private company named them” are different strengths of evidence, and we refuse to blur the two.
| Public body | 83 |
|---|---|
| Private organisation | 13 |
| Declarant not named | 0 |
What we deliberately do not claim
The honest shape of a dataset includes its gaps. Two fields are populated only where a source proves them, and left empty otherwise rather than guessed:
- Price. We publish a price band for only 17 of 245 listings — the 228 others have no verifiable published price, so we show none. A band is never inferred from a company’s size or country.
- Founding year. 109 listings have a founding year we could verify against an imprint, register, or company-history page (the oldest dates to 1894, the median to 2003); the remaining 136 are left blank rather than filled from an unverified third-party profile.
How this was made
Every number on this page is computed at build time from data/a11y/agencies.json by a single aggregator script — nothing here is transcribed by hand, and a test recomputes the figures from the catalog and fails if the published snapshot drifts. Each record in the catalog carries at least one cited source; across all 245 listings there are 832 source references, and 241 listings stand on two or more.
How each field is verified — and its limits — is documented in our methodology. You can browse the underlying records in the directory.
Scan your website Free instant check, then find a verified specialist from this dataset.