OnePageAudit Research Report

We Scanned 544 UK Websites for Accessibility Compliance. 77% Fail.

The most comprehensive independent study of web accessibility compliance in the United Kingdom. Every site was scanned with axe-core 4.11 and Lighthouse 13 across desktop and mobile viewports, tested against WCAG 2.1 Level AA as required by the Equality Act 2010 and the Public Sector Bodies Accessibility Regulations 2018.

Published: March 2026|Scanner: axe-core 4.11 + Lighthouse 13|Standard: WCAG 2.1 AA (EN 301 549)

544

Sites scanned

35.6

Avg accessibility score (0-100)

77.0%

Sites failing (score below 70)

Industries represented

Average Score

The average accessibility score across all 544 sites. Scores below 70 indicate non-compliance with WCAG 2.1 AA.

Average Accessibility Score

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

35.6

Failing

Score Distribution

How UK websites are distributed across score ranges. The concentration at the bottom shows a systemic compliance gap.

Score Distribution

How 454 sites spread across 10-point score bands

Compliance by Industry

Average accessibility score across 11 industries. Industries with fewer than 5 sites are excluded for statistical reliability.

Average Score by Industry

447 sites across 9 industries, sorted worst to best

Below 30 (critical)30-69 (at risk)70+ (passing)

Detailed Industry Breakdown

Industry Deep Dives

Select an industry to see detailed statistics

31.0

avg score

0.0

median score

61.5%

fail rate

61.5%

critical violations

38.5%

passing rate

39.4

std deviation

0 - 70

Q1 - Q3 range

sites in sample

Score position (0-100) — avg vs passing threshold

0Pass (70)100

Site Clusters (ML Analysis)

KMeans clustering groups sites by their violation profiles, revealing distinct patterns of non-compliance. Sites within each cluster share similar accessibility issues.

Site Clusters by Violation Pattern

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

113

Region + Color Contrast + Landmark One Main

Avg score: 15.5 | Median: | 113 sites

Landmark regions: 100Color contrast: 100Main landmark: 46.9

Other: 89Healthcare: 6Charity: 5

Color Contrast + Landmark Unique + Link Name

Avg score: 33.6 | Median: | 35 sites

Color contrast: 100Unique landmarks: 45.7Link name: 37.1

Other: 23Education: 3Government: 2

Landmark One Main + Region + Html Has Lang

Avg score: 42.7 | Median: | 74 sites

Main landmark: 98.6Landmark regions: 95.9Lang attr: 89.2

Other: 32Charity: 28Retail: 5

216

Region + Landmark Unique + Target Size

Avg score: 48.5 | Median: | 216 sites

Landmark regions: 54.2Unique landmarks: 32.4Target size: 19.9

Other: 109Government: 40Education: 24

Violation Co-occurrence

Which violations tend to appear together? The heatmap shows how frequently pairs of violations co-occur on the same site. High co-occurrence suggests a shared root cause.

Violation Co-occurrence Heatmap

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

	Main landmark	Landmark regions	Color contrast	Target size	Link name	Lang attr	H1 heading	Unique landmarks	Heading order	Image Redundant Alt
Main landmark	145	143	60	0	0	69	63	0	0	51
Landmark regions	143	145	120	82	76	71	70	69	61	59
Color contrast	60	120	155	50	58	0	0	0	0	0
Target size	0	82	50	301	0	0	0	0	0	0
Link name	0	76	58	0	102	0	0	0	0	0
Lang attr	69	71	0	0	0	77	0	0	0	0
H1 heading	63	70	0	0	0	0	89	0	0	0
Unique landmarks	0	69	0	0	0	0	0	120	0	0
Heading order	0	61	0	0	0	0	0	0	91	0
Image Redundant Alt	51	59	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	64

LowHighDiagonal (individual frequency)

Top Co-occurrence Pairs

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
Main landmark	Landmark regions	143	32.6%
Color contrast	Landmark regions	120	27.4%
Landmark regions	Target size	82	18.7%
Link name	Landmark regions	76	17.4%
Lang attr	Landmark regions	71	16.2%
H1 heading	Landmark regions	70	16%
Lang attr	Main landmark	69	15.8%
Unique landmarks	Landmark regions	69	15.8%
Main landmark	H1 heading	63	14.4%
Heading order	Landmark regions	61	13.9%
Color contrast	Main landmark	60	13.7%
Image Redundant Alt	Landmark regions	59	13.5%
Color contrast	Link name	58	13.2%
Image Redundant Alt	Main landmark	51	11.6%
Color contrast	Target size	50	11.4%

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)

Linear regression reveals which violations have the biggest negative impact on a site's accessibility score. Negative coefficients mean having that violation lowers your score by that many points on average.

What Impacts Score the Most

Linear regression: which violations drag your score down the most. R² = 0.655 (model explains 66% 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 Metrics

Beyond accessibility, Lighthouse measures performance, SEO, and best practices. These scores provide broader context on UK web quality.

Best and Worst Performers

The top 10 highest-scoring and bottom 10 lowest-scoring UK websites in our scan. All URLs are real and verifiable.

Best and Worst Performing Sites

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

#	URL	Score
1	companyinfo.northernrock.co.uk	100
2	111.nhs.uk	100
3	ads.pubmatic.com	100
4	api.amplitude.com	100
5	app.appsflyer.com	100
6	assets-jpcust.jwpsrv.com	100
7	dev.visualwebsiteoptimizer.com	100
8	geolocation.onetrust.com	100
9	gloucestershire.public-i.tv	100
10	news.kent.gov.uk	100

Unlock the Full UK 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 was scanned using axe-core 4.11 (Deque Systems) and Lighthouse 13 (Google) via Playwright.
Scans were performed in both desktop (1920x1080) and mobile (375x812) viewports.
Compliance standard: WCAG 2.1 Level AA as required by EN 301 549 v3.2.1, referenced by UK regulations.
A score of 70+ is considered "passing" based on axe-core's scoring methodology. Scores below 30 are classified as "critical."
All data is from automated scanning. Manual testing may yield different results for some WCAG criteria.

Data Sources

OnePageAudit Scanner (axe-core + Lighthouse) — Primary scan data for UK URLs
Equality Act 2010 — Legal framework for disability discrimination
Public Sector Bodies Accessibility Regulations 2018 — Public sector accessibility requirements
CDDO Accessibility Monitoring — Government enforcement and monitoring approach
EHRC Guidance — Equality Act enforcement guidance
Deque axe-core — WCAG violation detection engine (v4.11)
Google Lighthouse — Accessibility, performance, and SEO scoring (v13.0.3)

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 on your website in seconds. Get your score, top violations, and actionable remediation steps.

Scan Your Website Free

OnePageAudit Research Report

We Scanned 544 UK Websites for Accessibility Compliance. 77% Fail.

Published: March 2026|Scanner: axe-core 4.11 + Lighthouse 13|Standard: WCAG 2.1 AA (EN 301 549)

544

Sites scanned

35.6

Avg accessibility score (0-100)

77.0%

Sites failing (score below 70)

Industries represented

Average Score

The average accessibility score across all 544 sites. Scores below 70 indicate non-compliance with WCAG 2.1 AA.

Average Accessibility Score

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

35.6

Failing

Score Distribution

How UK websites are distributed across score ranges. The concentration at the bottom shows a systemic compliance gap.

Score Distribution

How 454 sites spread across 10-point score bands

Compliance by Industry

Average accessibility score across 11 industries. Industries with fewer than 5 sites are excluded for statistical reliability.

Average Score by Industry

447 sites across 9 industries, sorted worst to best

Below 30 (critical)30-69 (at risk)70+ (passing)

Detailed Industry Breakdown

Industry Deep Dives

Select an industry to see detailed statistics

31.0

avg score

0.0

median score

61.5%

fail rate

61.5%

critical violations

38.5%

passing rate

39.4

std deviation

0 - 70

Q1 - Q3 range

sites in sample

Score position (0-100) — avg vs passing threshold

0Pass (70)100

Site Clusters (ML Analysis)

KMeans clustering groups sites by their violation profiles, revealing distinct patterns of non-compliance. Sites within each cluster share similar accessibility issues.

Site Clusters by Violation Pattern

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

113

Region + Color Contrast + Landmark One Main

Avg score: 15.5 | Median: | 113 sites

Landmark regions: 100Color contrast: 100Main landmark: 46.9

Other: 89Healthcare: 6Charity: 5

Color Contrast + Landmark Unique + Link Name

Avg score: 33.6 | Median: | 35 sites

Color contrast: 100Unique landmarks: 45.7Link name: 37.1

Other: 23Education: 3Government: 2

Landmark One Main + Region + Html Has Lang

Avg score: 42.7 | Median: | 74 sites

Main landmark: 98.6Landmark regions: 95.9Lang attr: 89.2

Other: 32Charity: 28Retail: 5

216

Region + Landmark Unique + Target Size

Avg score: 48.5 | Median: | 216 sites

Landmark regions: 54.2Unique landmarks: 32.4Target size: 19.9

Other: 109Government: 40Education: 24

Violation Co-occurrence

Which violations tend to appear together? The heatmap shows how frequently pairs of violations co-occur on the same site. High co-occurrence suggests a shared root cause.

Violation Co-occurrence Heatmap

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

	Main landmark	Landmark regions	Color contrast	Target size	Link name	Lang attr	H1 heading	Unique landmarks	Heading order	Image Redundant Alt
Main landmark	145	143	60	0	0	69	63	0	0	51
Landmark regions	143	145	120	82	76	71	70	69	61	59
Color contrast	60	120	155	50	58	0	0	0	0	0
Target size	0	82	50	301	0	0	0	0	0	0
Link name	0	76	58	0	102	0	0	0	0	0
Lang attr	69	71	0	0	0	77	0	0	0	0
H1 heading	63	70	0	0	0	0	89	0	0	0
Unique landmarks	0	69	0	0	0	0	0	120	0	0
Heading order	0	61	0	0	0	0	0	0	91	0
Image Redundant Alt	51	59	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	64

LowHighDiagonal (individual frequency)

Top Co-occurrence Pairs

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
Main landmark	Landmark regions	143	32.6%
Color contrast	Landmark regions	120	27.4%
Landmark regions	Target size	82	18.7%
Link name	Landmark regions	76	17.4%
Lang attr	Landmark regions	71	16.2%
H1 heading	Landmark regions	70	16%
Lang attr	Main landmark	69	15.8%
Unique landmarks	Landmark regions	69	15.8%
Main landmark	H1 heading	63	14.4%
Heading order	Landmark regions	61	13.9%
Color contrast	Main landmark	60	13.7%
Image Redundant Alt	Landmark regions	59	13.5%
Color contrast	Link name	58	13.2%
Image Redundant Alt	Main landmark	51	11.6%
Color contrast	Target size	50	11.4%

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 = 0.655 (model explains 66% of score variance).

Lighthouse Performance Metrics

Beyond accessibility, Lighthouse measures performance, SEO, and best practices. These scores provide broader context on UK web quality.

Best and Worst Performers

The top 10 highest-scoring and bottom 10 lowest-scoring UK websites in our scan. All URLs are real and verifiable.

Best and Worst Performing Sites

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

#	URL	Score
1	companyinfo.northernrock.co.uk	100
2	111.nhs.uk	100
3	ads.pubmatic.com	100
4	api.amplitude.com	100
5	app.appsflyer.com	100
6	assets-jpcust.jwpsrv.com	100
7	dev.visualwebsiteoptimizer.com	100
8	geolocation.onetrust.com	100
9	gloucestershire.public-i.tv	100
10	news.kent.gov.uk	100

Unlock the Full UK 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 was scanned using axe-core 4.11 (Deque Systems) and Lighthouse 13 (Google) via Playwright.
Scans were performed in both desktop (1920x1080) and mobile (375x812) viewports.
Compliance standard: WCAG 2.1 Level AA as required by EN 301 549 v3.2.1, referenced by UK regulations.
A score of 70+ is considered "passing" based on axe-core's scoring methodology. Scores below 30 are classified as "critical."
All data is from automated scanning. Manual testing may yield different results for some WCAG criteria.

Data Sources

OnePageAudit Scanner (axe-core + Lighthouse) — Primary scan data for UK URLs
Equality Act 2010 — Legal framework for disability discrimination
Public Sector Bodies Accessibility Regulations 2018 — Public sector accessibility requirements
CDDO Accessibility Monitoring — Government enforcement and monitoring approach
EHRC Guidance — Equality Act enforcement guidance
Deque axe-core — WCAG violation detection engine (v4.11)
Google Lighthouse — Accessibility, performance, and SEO scoring (v13.0.3)

Is Your Website Compliant?

Run a free accessibility scan on your website in seconds. Get your score, top violations, and actionable remediation steps.

Scan Your Website Free