OnePageAudit Research Report

We Scanned 459 Israeli Websites for Accessibility Compliance. 87.1% Fail.

The first comprehensive independent study of web accessibility in Israel. Every site was scanned with axe-core 4.11 and Lighthouse 13 across desktop and mobile viewports, tested against Israeli Standard 5568 (based on WCAG 2.0 Level AA) with additional checks for RTL support and Hebrew language attributes.

Published: March 2026|Scanner: axe-core 4.11 + Lighthouse 13|Standard: IS 5568 (WCAG 2.0 AA + RTL/Hebrew)

459

Sites scanned

17.6

Avg accessibility score (0-100)

87.1%

Sites failing (score below 70)

Industries represented

Average Score

At 17.6/100, Israel has the lowest average of any region we have scanned.

Average Accessibility Score

Score below 70 is considered failing. 100 = fully accessible.

17.6

Failing

Score Distribution

The extreme concentration at the bottom reflects both WCAG violations and Israel-specific IS 5568 requirements.

Score Distribution

How 459 sites spread across 10-point score bands

Legal Framework

Israel's Equal Rights for Persons with Disabilities Act 1998 and IS 5568 mandate web accessibility with statutory damages of 10,000-50,000 NIS.

Legal Context & Enforcement

Enforcement body

Commission for Equal Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Civil courts handle private claims.

Penalties

Civil lawsuits, regulatory fines, mandatory remediation orders. Growing class-action precedent.

Compliance deadline / status

October 26, 2017 (compliance date has passed for organizations with 50+ employees).

Current trend

Enforcement accelerating since 2020. RTL and Hebrew language compliance are unique requirements.

Notable cases & precedents

-Multiple class-action lawsuits against banks and telecoms since 2020
-Israel Innovation Authority accessibility requirements for grants

Most Common Violations

Top violations ranked by percentage of sites affected.

Top Violations by Affected Sites

% of scanned sites with each violation. Color = severity level.

CriticalSeriousModerateMinorClicking a bar opens the Deque rule page.

Hard-to-Fix Violations

These violations appear even on high-scoring sites. Persistence ratio = rate on high-scorers / overall rate. Higher = harder to fix.

A persistence ratio greater than 1.0 means the violation is more common on high-scoring sites than average. These are systemic issues that even well-optimized sites struggle to eliminate.

Site Clusters (ML Analysis)

Site Clusters by Violation Pattern

Sites grouped by shared violation fingerprints using k-means clustering. Bubble size = number of sites.

Region + Color Contrast + Link Name

Avg score: 0 | Median: 0 | 67 sites

Landmark regions: 95.5Color contrast: 88.1Link name: 86.6

Meta Viewport + Region + Color Contrast

Avg score: 0.6 | Median: 0 | 67 sites

Viewport: 98.5Landmark regions: 97Color contrast: 89.6

Region + Frame Title + Il Skip Nav Localized

Avg score: 0.8 | Median: 0 | 55 sites

Landmark regions: 98.2Frame title: 98.2Il Skip Nav Localized: 96.4

Link Name + Region + Color Contrast

Avg score: 9 | Median: 0 | 87 sites

Link name: 100Landmark regions: 64.4Color contrast: 48.3

Region + Color Contrast + Target Size

Avg score: 24.2 | Median: 0 | 77 sites

Landmark regions: 72.7Color contrast: 49.4Target size: 36.4

Landmark One Main + Region + Page Has Heading One

Avg score: 46.8 | Median: 60 | 98 sites

Main landmark: 100Landmark regions: 79.6H1 heading: 48

Violation Co-occurrence

Violation Co-occurrence Heatmap

Color intensity = how often two violations appear on the same site. Diagonal = overall frequency.

	Landmark regions	Color contrast	Il Skip Nav Localized	Il Rtl Support	Link name	Frame title	Image alt	Main landmark	Viewport	Button name	Target size	Unique landmarks
Landmark regions	373	223	0	0	190	0	0	152	140	0	0	0
Color contrast	223	373	0	0	158	0	108	0	112	0	104	0
Il Skip Nav Localized	0	0	141	90	92	73	0	0	0	78	0	0
Il Rtl Support	0	0	90	141	0	0	0	0	68	0	0	0
Link name	190	158	92	0	255	0	104	0	97	98	102	0
Frame title	0	0	73	0	0	141	0	0	0	66	0	68
Image alt	0	108	0	0	104	0	225	0	0	0	0	0
Main landmark	152	0	0	0	0	0	0	373	0	0	0	0
Viewport	140	112	0	68	97	0	0	0	255	0	0	0
Button name	0	0	78	0	98	66	0	0	0	141	0	0
Target size	0	104	0	0	102	0	0	0	0	0	225	0
Unique landmarks	0	0	0	0	0	68	0	0	0	0	0	145

LowHighDiagonal (individual frequency)

Top Violation Co-occurrence Pairs

Which violations most commonly appear together on the same site. Jaccard = how tightly paired they are (0-1).

Violation A	Violation B	Co-occur	% of Sites	Jaccard
Landmark regions	Color contrast	223	48.6%	0.551
Il Skip Nav Localized	Il Rtl Support	90	19.6%	0.517
Color contrast	Link name	158	34.4%	0.491
Landmark regions	Link name	190	41.4%	0.466
Il Skip Nav Localized	Frame title	73	15.9%	0.403
Link name	Image alt	104	22.7%	0.390
Landmark regions	Main landmark	152	33.1%	0.387
Color contrast	Viewport	112	24.4%	0.385
Il Skip Nav Localized	Button name	78	17%	0.384
Color contrast	Image alt	108	23.5%	0.369
Landmark regions	Viewport	140	30.5%	0.367
Link name	Target size	102	22.2%	0.367
Link name	Button name	98	21.4%	0.367
Unique landmarks	Frame title	68	14.8%	0.358
Button name	Frame title	66	14.4%	0.353
Link name	Viewport	97	21.1%	0.351
Link name	Heading order	93	20.3%	0.343
Color contrast	Target size	104	22.7%	0.340
Link name	Il Skip Nav Localized	92	20%	0.336
Viewport	Il Rtl Support	68	14.8%	0.335

Jaccard similarity above 0.4 indicates these violations almost always appear together. Fixing one likely requires addressing the other as well.

Impact on Score (Regression)

What Impacts Score the Most

Linear regression: which violations drag your score down the most. R² = 0.587 (model explains 59% of score variance).

Red bars = violations that lower your score. Green bars = violations that correlate with higher scores (often co-occur with better sites overall). These coefficients control for other violations — each reflects independent impact.

Lighthouse Performance

Lighthouse Scores

Avg Google Lighthouse scores across 457 scanned sites (desktop viewport)

Accessibility

Median: 82

Performance

Median: 55

SEO

Median: 92

Best Practices

Median: 73

Best and Worst Performers

Best and Worst Performing Sites

Real sites from the scan data. Scores are based on axe-core violations only.

#	URL	Score	Violations	Industry
1	www.idbny.com	100	0	General
2	www.tyco.co.il	100	0	General
3	fra-col.eum-appdynamics.com	100	0	General
4	www.v-1.co.il	100	0	General
5	widgets.outbrain.com	100	0	General
6	www.science.co.il	90	1	General
7	www.yes.co.il	90	2	General
8	mydigitel.tel-aviv.gov.il	90	1	General
9	login.microsoftonline.com	88	2	General
10	www.cs.technion.ac.il	87	2	General

Unlock the Full Israel Web Accessibility Report 2026 Report

Enter your email to access the industry deep dives, violation clustering analysis, predictive model results, and the full dataset download.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Sources & Methodology

Methodology

Every site scanned using axe-core 4.11 and Lighthouse 13 via Playwright.
Desktop (1920x1080) and mobile (375x812) viewports.
Standard: IS 5568 (based on WCAG 2.0 AA) with additional RTL and Hebrew checks.
Score 70+ = passing, below 30 = critical.

Data Sources

axe-core — WCAG 2.1 AA violation detection
Lighthouse — Accessibility, performance, SEO scoring

Related Resources

US Compliance by State

ADA scores and state law data for all 50 states + DC.

Industry Guides

ADA compliance for ecommerce, healthcare, restaurants, and more.

Browse All Resources

States, cities, industries, and tool comparisons.

Is Your Website Compliant?

Run a free accessibility scan in seconds.

Scan Your Website Free

OnePageAudit Research Report

We Scanned 459 Israeli Websites for Accessibility Compliance. 87.1% Fail.

Published: March 2026|Scanner: axe-core 4.11 + Lighthouse 13|Standard: IS 5568 (WCAG 2.0 AA + RTL/Hebrew)

459

Sites scanned

17.6

Avg accessibility score (0-100)

87.1%

Sites failing (score below 70)

Industries represented

Average Score

At 17.6/100, Israel has the lowest average of any region we have scanned.

Average Accessibility Score

Score below 70 is considered failing. 100 = fully accessible.

17.6

Failing

Score Distribution

The extreme concentration at the bottom reflects both WCAG violations and Israel-specific IS 5568 requirements.

Score Distribution

How 459 sites spread across 10-point score bands

Legal Framework

Israel's Equal Rights for Persons with Disabilities Act 1998 and IS 5568 mandate web accessibility with statutory damages of 10,000-50,000 NIS.

Legal Context & Enforcement

Enforcement body

Commission for Equal Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Civil courts handle private claims.

Penalties

Civil lawsuits, regulatory fines, mandatory remediation orders. Growing class-action precedent.

Compliance deadline / status

October 26, 2017 (compliance date has passed for organizations with 50+ employees).

Current trend

Enforcement accelerating since 2020. RTL and Hebrew language compliance are unique requirements.

Notable cases & precedents

-Multiple class-action lawsuits against banks and telecoms since 2020
-Israel Innovation Authority accessibility requirements for grants

Most Common Violations

Top violations ranked by percentage of sites affected.

Top Violations by Affected Sites

% of scanned sites with each violation. Color = severity level.

CriticalSeriousModerateMinorClicking a bar opens the Deque rule page.

Hard-to-Fix Violations

These violations appear even on high-scoring sites. Persistence ratio = rate on high-scorers / overall rate. Higher = harder to fix.

A persistence ratio greater than 1.0 means the violation is more common on high-scoring sites than average. These are systemic issues that even well-optimized sites struggle to eliminate.

Site Clusters (ML Analysis)

Site Clusters by Violation Pattern

Sites grouped by shared violation fingerprints using k-means clustering. Bubble size = number of sites.

Region + Color Contrast + Link Name

Avg score: 0 | Median: 0 | 67 sites

Landmark regions: 95.5Color contrast: 88.1Link name: 86.6

Meta Viewport + Region + Color Contrast

Avg score: 0.6 | Median: 0 | 67 sites

Viewport: 98.5Landmark regions: 97Color contrast: 89.6

Region + Frame Title + Il Skip Nav Localized

Avg score: 0.8 | Median: 0 | 55 sites

Landmark regions: 98.2Frame title: 98.2Il Skip Nav Localized: 96.4

Link Name + Region + Color Contrast

Avg score: 9 | Median: 0 | 87 sites

Link name: 100Landmark regions: 64.4Color contrast: 48.3

Region + Color Contrast + Target Size

Avg score: 24.2 | Median: 0 | 77 sites

Landmark regions: 72.7Color contrast: 49.4Target size: 36.4

Landmark One Main + Region + Page Has Heading One

Avg score: 46.8 | Median: 60 | 98 sites

Main landmark: 100Landmark regions: 79.6H1 heading: 48

Violation Co-occurrence

Violation Co-occurrence Heatmap

Color intensity = how often two violations appear on the same site. Diagonal = overall frequency.

	Landmark regions	Color contrast	Il Skip Nav Localized	Il Rtl Support	Link name	Frame title	Image alt	Main landmark	Viewport	Button name	Target size	Unique landmarks
Landmark regions	373	223	0	0	190	0	0	152	140	0	0	0
Color contrast	223	373	0	0	158	0	108	0	112	0	104	0
Il Skip Nav Localized	0	0	141	90	92	73	0	0	0	78	0	0
Il Rtl Support	0	0	90	141	0	0	0	0	68	0	0	0
Link name	190	158	92	0	255	0	104	0	97	98	102	0
Frame title	0	0	73	0	0	141	0	0	0	66	0	68
Image alt	0	108	0	0	104	0	225	0	0	0	0	0
Main landmark	152	0	0	0	0	0	0	373	0	0	0	0
Viewport	140	112	0	68	97	0	0	0	255	0	0	0
Button name	0	0	78	0	98	66	0	0	0	141	0	0
Target size	0	104	0	0	102	0	0	0	0	0	225	0
Unique landmarks	0	0	0	0	0	68	0	0	0	0	0	145

LowHighDiagonal (individual frequency)

Top Violation Co-occurrence Pairs

Which violations most commonly appear together on the same site. Jaccard = how tightly paired they are (0-1).

Violation A	Violation B	Co-occur	% of Sites	Jaccard
Landmark regions	Color contrast	223	48.6%	0.551
Il Skip Nav Localized	Il Rtl Support	90	19.6%	0.517
Color contrast	Link name	158	34.4%	0.491
Landmark regions	Link name	190	41.4%	0.466
Il Skip Nav Localized	Frame title	73	15.9%	0.403
Link name	Image alt	104	22.7%	0.390
Landmark regions	Main landmark	152	33.1%	0.387
Color contrast	Viewport	112	24.4%	0.385
Il Skip Nav Localized	Button name	78	17%	0.384
Color contrast	Image alt	108	23.5%	0.369
Landmark regions	Viewport	140	30.5%	0.367
Link name	Target size	102	22.2%	0.367
Link name	Button name	98	21.4%	0.367
Unique landmarks	Frame title	68	14.8%	0.358
Button name	Frame title	66	14.4%	0.353
Link name	Viewport	97	21.1%	0.351
Link name	Heading order	93	20.3%	0.343
Color contrast	Target size	104	22.7%	0.340
Link name	Il Skip Nav Localized	92	20%	0.336
Viewport	Il Rtl Support	68	14.8%	0.335

Jaccard similarity above 0.4 indicates these violations almost always appear together. Fixing one likely requires addressing the other as well.

Impact on Score (Regression)

What Impacts Score the Most

Linear regression: which violations drag your score down the most. R² = 0.587 (model explains 59% of score variance).

Lighthouse Performance

Lighthouse Scores

Avg Google Lighthouse scores across 457 scanned sites (desktop viewport)

Accessibility

Median: 82

Performance

Median: 55

SEO

Median: 92

Best Practices

Median: 73

Best and Worst Performers

Best and Worst Performing Sites

Real sites from the scan data. Scores are based on axe-core violations only.

#	URL	Score	Violations	Industry
1	www.idbny.com	100	0	General
2	www.tyco.co.il	100	0	General
3	fra-col.eum-appdynamics.com	100	0	General
4	www.v-1.co.il	100	0	General
5	widgets.outbrain.com	100	0	General
6	www.science.co.il	90	1	General
7	www.yes.co.il	90	2	General
8	mydigitel.tel-aviv.gov.il	90	1	General
9	login.microsoftonline.com	88	2	General
10	www.cs.technion.ac.il	87	2	General

Unlock the Full Israel Web Accessibility Report 2026 Report

Enter your email to access the industry deep dives, violation clustering analysis, predictive model results, and the full dataset download.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Sources & Methodology

Methodology

Every site scanned using axe-core 4.11 and Lighthouse 13 via Playwright.
Desktop (1920x1080) and mobile (375x812) viewports.
Standard: IS 5568 (based on WCAG 2.0 AA) with additional RTL and Hebrew checks.
Score 70+ = passing, below 30 = critical.

Data Sources

axe-core — WCAG 2.1 AA violation detection
Lighthouse — Accessibility, performance, SEO scoring

Is Your Website Compliant?

Run a free accessibility scan in seconds.

Scan Your Website Free