Website governance and accessibility
Asked as “website governance and accessibility platform”, and as “website accessibility and quality monitoring tool”, on behalf of a mid-market B2B software company. 60 first choices recorded across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, six models each. Added to the September 2026 Edition; its answers are read by the distilled judge (ai-indexes-judge-qwen3-14b), not the claude-opus-5 judge of the earlier categories: how the two compare.
Standing · first-choice share
25%
Contested · Silktide 23%
25Siteimprove23Silktide10Acquia Web Governance42others
25% of first choices, contested.
The standing
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, over all six models, for a mid-market B2B software company. Ordered by share.
ProductFirst-choice shareNegative rateLabelsQuadrantSince September 2026
03
Acquia Web Governance10%4%23accepted challengernewNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 10% now.
Acquia Web Governance10%4%23accepted challengernewNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 10% now.Show the two products at 0%, ordered by negative rate
The floor is 12 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one is noise, and both are shown. How the floor is measured
Bars are the share of first choices, 0 to 100Every product with at least 10 labels here. Every product name links to its product page.
Recommended versus criticized
Every product with at least 10 labels here, on both axes. The 30% line names a quadrant, not the verdict above: that one needs more than 40%.
Criticized challengerCriticized default
Negative label rate →
01
0203
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11a12
13Accepted challengerEndorsed leader
0%First-choice share → · lines at 30% share and 25% negative40%
Key
01Siteimprove25%
Siteimprove25%02Silktide23%
Silktide23%03Acquia Web Governance10%
Acquia Web Governance10%04UserWay7%
UserWay7%05Monsido3%
Monsido3%06Wave3%
Wave3%07Pope Tech3%
Pope Tech3%08AudioEye3%
AudioEye3%09DubBot2%
DubBot2%10Deque axe Platform2%
Deque axe Platform2%11accessiBe2%
accessiBe2%12axe DevTools0%
13Level Access0%
Level Access0%What they warned about
A high negative share on a product with few labels is a warning. A low share on a product with many labels is salience, not sentiment.
accessiBe71%
22 of 31 labels negative · 12 of 6 models · 14 hard negative
“Widely criticized for aggressive marketing that overpromises results... it has faced significant backlash from the disability community and numerous lawsuits.” Qwen 3.7 Flash, negative prompt
UserWay67%
20 of 30 labels negative · 10 of 6 models · 11 hard negative
“The Major Players to Avoid: Overlay plugins like accessiBe and UserWay typically address only 20-30% of WCAG success criteria” Claude Haiku 4.5, negative prompt
AudioEye44%
11 of 25 labels negative · 8 of 6 models · 8 hard negative
“court rulings (such as in *LightHouse v. ADP*) have explicitly stated that overlay solutions do not constitute adequate accessibility fixes under the law” Qwen 3.7 Flash, negative prompt
Siteimprove25%
15 of 61 labels negative · 8 of 6 models · 1 hard negative
“Platforms to **Avoid** if Budget is Very Tight: **Siteimprove:** ... notoriously expensive.” Qwen 3.7 Flash, budget prompt
What they cite
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list: fourteen of the six in this edition.
Sites the answers cite
81 of 84 answers in this category came back with a source list, from 14 of 6 models: citations where the model returns them, or the search results it consulted. 1131 links across 285 sites, every framing counted. Ranked by the number of answers carrying the site or page.
vendor site · Silktide47 answers · 60 citations · 13 models
45 answers · 101 citations · 12 models
40 answers · 40 citations · 10 models
vendor site · AccessibilityChecker.org29 answers · 38 citations · 12 models
27 answers · 37 citations · 10 models
vendor site · Guideflow25 answers · 27 citations · 10 models
22 answers · 40 citations · 10 models
20 answers · 21 citations · 9 models
vendor site · Accessibility Cloud19 answers · 19 citations · 12 models
vendor site · AudioEye18 answers · 26 citations · 11 models
vendor site · SourceForge18 answers · 22 citations · 8 models
vendor site · GetApp18 answers · 21 citations · 10 models
Pages the answers cite
The ten pages named in the most answers, by full address. A page here is one the models returned with a recommendation, not one the index endorses.
40 answers · 12 models
39 answers · 10 models
23 answers · 10 models
18 answers · 12 models
17 answers · 8 models
16 answers · 9 models
14 answers · 9 models
13 answers · 8 models
12 answers · 9 models
11 answers · 7 models
Search against answers
Each company's standing in the answers beside its site's footprint in Google search, one row a site: the products the models named on it with their shares, and the share they add up to; monthly searches on Google, and DataForSEO's estimate of AI search demand (modeled from search signals, directional, not a count of queries to any assistant), for the most-searched of the company's and its products' names (the name is in each row's hover text); estimated monthly organic visits to the site; and its best position in Google's top ten for “best website governance and accessibility platform”, “website governance and accessibility platform”. US estimates from DataForSEO and Google's Ads Transparency Center. A small company's site, or a mid-sized company's site for its flagship, is marked company; a product on a large parent's site (Google, Microsoft) has no site figures. A column with no figures for this category is left out, and an empty cell means none were seen, not none exist. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.
| Company and products | Share | Own site cited | Name searches, Google | AI search demand, est. | Organic visits | Paid search a month, est. | Google ads, last 30 days | Best Google position |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Siteimprove siteimprove.com | 25% | 179 | 6,600 | 122 | 117,981 | 50 | 4 | |
| Silktide silktide.com | 23% | 126 | 1,300 | 14 | 4,961 | 0 | 3 | |
| Acquia acquia.com Acquia Web Governance 10% | 10% | 72 | 3,600 | 216 | 72,942 company | $2,943 | 92 | 1 |
| UserWay userway.org | 7% | 81 | 2,400 | 72 | 42,885 | 36 | 9 | |
| Monsido monsido.com | 3% | 33 | 480 | 5 | 242 | |||
| Wave wave.video | 3% | 50 | 368,000 | 253,218 | 54,926 | 1 | ||
| Pope Tech pope.tech | 3% | 31 | 480 | 4 | 3,943 | 1 | ||
| Google parent site Google Lighthouse 3% | 3% | 15 | ||||||
| AudioEye audioeye.com | 3% | 67 | 2,400 | 66 | 36,679 | $3,630 | 56 | |
| DubBot dubbot.com | 2% | 45 | 590 | 3 | 6,988 | 10 |
Google's top ten for the two searches hold 17 sites; 3 of them are among the sites the models cited here (accessible.org, g2.com, silktide.com). The first result for “best website governance and accessibility platform” is acquia.com.
How they answered
Six framings of the same buying question, each sent to every model in a fresh session with search on. One row per model, so a row shows whether it held its answer under rewording, what it named when cost was the constraint, and what it argued against. Computed from the raw judge labels.ShowHide
How they answered
Six framings of the same buying question, each sent to every model in a fresh session with search on. One row per model, so a row shows whether it held its answer under rewording, what it named when cost was the constraint, and what it argued against. Computed from the raw judge labels.
ShowHideModelDirect“What is the best website governance and accessibility platform for a mid-market B2B company?”Paraphrase“Which website accessibility and quality monitoring tool would you recommend to a mid-sized B2B company?”Comparative“What are the top website governance and accessibility platforms and how do they differ?”Budget-constrained“What is the best website governance and accessibility platform for a company with a limited budget?”Scale-constrained“We are a 500 person company evaluating a website governance and accessibility platform. What should we look at?”Negative“Which website governance and accessibility platforms should I avoid or be cautious about?”
Claude Opus 5no first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choicenothing named
Claude Opus 4.8no first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choicenothing named
GPT-6 Astrano first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choicenothing named
GPT-5.6 Solno first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choicenothing named
Gemini 3.1 Prono first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choicenothing named
Perplexity Sonar Prono first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choiceno first choicenothing named
Bold is the first choiceAlternatives are counted; the count opens them.What the answer argued against
The record
One row per call: the version string exactly as returned, whether the model searched, sources cited, and latency. Full answer text is in the free responses file. Download the record
Zero rows: every prompt, every model, every answer.
| Prompt | Model | Version string | Time (UTC) | Searched | Sources | Latency |
|---|
Normalization in this category
Every judgment call made between the raw labels and the numbers above, listed so it is visible and reversible.
ShowHide
Category-scoped readings
Acquia/Monsido read as Acquia Web Governance
Deque read as Deque axe Platform
Deque (Axe Auditor / Axe DevTools) read as Deque axe Platform
Deque (axe) read as Deque axe Platform
Deque Systems read as Deque axe Platform
Deque Systems (Axe Tools) read as Deque axe Platform
Deque Systems (axe) read as Deque axe Platform
Deque Systems (specifically 'Level Access') read as Deque axe Platform
Unresolved, counted raw
A11y Projects / WAVE
AChecker
AccessibilityOz
Accessible Web
Accessible.org
Acquia
Acquia (Drupal-based)
Acquia (formerly Monsido)
Ahrefs' free checker
Ally
Archer/RSA Archer
BrowserStack Accessibility Testing
Colour Contrast Analyser (CCA)
Corpowid
Crownpeak DXM
Deque – axe DevTools / axe Monitor / axe Auditor
EcomBack
Episerver (Optimizely)
EqualVia
LevelLevel
Lumetra Accessibility Checker
MainWP
Mant Accessibility
MetricStream
Modern Campus
OpenText Web CMS
Optro
Pingdom / StatusCake
PopeTech
QualiBe
SiteCockpit
Siteimprove Quality Assurance
Sudo
Synthesized
TPGi ARC Platform
The ARC Toolkit from TPGi
WCAGsafe
Web Accessibility (formerly Ally)
WebAIM – WAVE
Discontinued, still offered
No shut-down product was recommended here.