Guide
Accessibility statement vs VPAT: what is the difference?
A statement talks to the person using your site. A VPAT talks to the person buying your product. Confusing the two wastes procurement cycles and produces public pages that answer the wrong question. This guide separates them, and explains what each document can and cannot prove.
General information, not legal or procurement advice. Contract requirements override anything here; read the solicitation.
What an accessibility statement is
A public page, on your own domain, written in plain language for the people who use the service. The W3C’s minimal example has three parts: a commitment, a conformance status naming the guideline and level, and a feedback route with contact details and a response time. The date the statement was prepared closes it.
The reader is a visitor who has hit a barrier, or a colleague checking whether the site is being honest. The useful content is therefore specific: which standard, which level, which known gaps, who to contact, how fast you reply, and what alternative exists while a gap is open.
Statements are also where legal duties surface. Under the EAA, a covered service provider must publish accessibility information in writing and in an accessible oral format. In the UK, public sector bodies must publish a statement under the 2018 Regulations. Neither duty is satisfied by a VPAT sitting on a sales page.
What a VPAT is
The Voluntary Product Accessibility Template is published by ITI, the Information Technology Industry Council. It is a free template that turns accessibility standards into a table of provisions, with a column for the vendor’s conformance level and a column for an explanation. Version 2.5Rev dates from April 2025.
ITI publishes four editions, and the differences matter:
- VPAT 2.5 508 - the Revised Section 508 standards, which incorporate WCAG 2.0.
- VPAT 2.5 EU - EN 301 549, which incorporates WCAG 2.1.
- VPAT 2.5 WCAG - WCAG 2.0, 2.1 or 2.2, at the vendor’s choice of edition.
- VPAT 2.5 INT - all three standards in one document, and the edition that uses WCAG 2.2.
The conformance levels are supports, partially supports, does not support, and not applicable. ITI notes that “partially supports” replaced “supports with exceptions” at the request of the US Access Board, which is a useful reminder that the vocabulary is standardised rather than free text.
What an ACR is
A completed VPAT for a specific product is an Accessibility Conformance Report. ITI’s own FAQ is blunt about the boundary: the VPAT is the template, the ACR is the filled-in version. There is no submission process, no certification and no conformance logo.
Section508.gov describes an ACR as a document explaining how ICT products conform to the Revised 508 Standards, used by federal contracting officials during market research and proposal evaluation. It also publishes an ACR editor that produces machine-readable OpenACR files, which is the practical route for vendors selling to US agencies.
The fields that carry the most information are easy to skip: product description, evaluation methods used, the version tested, and the notes under each table. An ACR with an empty evaluation methods field is a claim without a method.
Who asks for which
| Requester | Usually wants | Because |
|---|---|---|
| A visitor or customer | Accessibility statement | To understand a barrier and report it |
| A public sector buyer | ACR, sometimes a test report | To compare products against a standard before award |
| An enterprise procurement team | ACR plus security and accessibility questionnaires | To evidence due diligence in a vendor file |
| A regulator or complaint handler | Statement, and the evidence behind it | To check the public claim against the actual service |
| An agency’s client | Audit report, statement drafted from it | To fix issues and publish an honest position |
The pattern is consistent: statements face outward to users, ACRs face sideways to buyers. A regulator may read both, which is why mismatches between them are expensive.
How procurement uses them
In a US federal buy, the solicitation names the accessibility requirements and the standards that apply. The vendor responds with an ACR, and Section508.gov publishes guidance for contracting officials on understanding vendor claims. That guidance exists because an ACR records the seller’s own assessment.
Three habits make an ACR usable in evaluation:
- Match the edition to the market. A 508-edition ACR does not answer an EN 301 549 question, because the incorporated WCAG versions differ.
- Read the “partially supports” rows first. They are where the product’s real limits sit, and where a follow-up question earns its keep.
- Ask for the remediation date on anything that matters to your users.A gap with a date is a plan; a gap without one is a permanent exclusion.
In the EU, the same logic runs through public procurement of ICT, where EN 301 549 is the reference standard. The EAA guide covers how the directive and the standard fit together.
Where each document stops
A statement stops at disclosure. It can be accurate and still describe an inaccessible service: “partially conformant, checkout unusable by keyboard” is a truthful statement and a serious problem. Publishing it does not fix the checkout.
An ACR stops at self-assessment. ITI does not review or approve VPATs, and there is no certification. The document says what the vendor believes and how they tested; it is not an independent finding. ITI itself notes that a product which does not fully conform may still work well for a particular user, and that a conforming product may still present difficulties. That nuance is honest, and it is also why procurement should not reduce to a single cell in a table.
Neither document replaces a test report: a record of what was tested, how, on what date, with what result. If you need that, theaccessibility report guide sets out the structure, and the audit service produces it.
When you need both
Most organisations that sell to the public sector and serve consumers need both, but not from the same team. The statement belongs to the people who own the service and answer the inbox. The ACR belongs to product, sales and compliance, and should be refreshed when the product version changes.
Keep them consistent. If the statement says the checkout is keyboard accessible, the ACR should not say 2.1.1 does not support. Reconcile them after every audit, and date both. A mismatch discovered by a buyer is harder to recover from than a gap disclosed early.
Writing the public half? Thefree statement generator produces the W3C structure with the EAA, BFSG, UK and US references. For the evidence half, start with thereport guide.
Frequently asked questions
Is an accessibility statement the same as a VPAT?
No. A statement is a public page written for visitors, describing how accessible a site or app is and how to report a barrier. A VPAT is a vendor questionnaire about a product, completed by the seller and usually read by a buyer. They serve different readers and answer different questions.
What is the difference between a VPAT and an ACR?
The VPAT is the blank template. A completed VPAT for a specific product is an Accessibility Conformance Report, or ACR. ITI, which publishes the template, states the same distinction and does not review or approve the result.
Which VPAT edition should a vendor complete?
The one the buyer’s solicitation names. ITI publishes four editions: Section 508, EU (EN 301 549), WCAG, and INT, which combines all three. The WCAG edition of VPAT 2.5Rev uses WCAG 2.2, the EU edition uses WCAG 2.1, and the 508 edition uses WCAG 2.0.
Does a VPAT certify that a product is accessible?
No. There is no VPAT certification. ITI says plainly that it does not review or approve VPATs, and that there is no pass or fail scale. An ACR is a structured disclosure by the seller, which is why a buyer should ask for the testing behind it.
What should a buyer ask for beyond an ACR?
Ask for the evaluation methods, the product version tested, the date, the assistive technology combinations used, and any recent test report. Section508.gov publishes guidance for buyers on understanding vendor claims in ACRs, which is the right thing to read before treating one as proof.
Can one document satisfy both audiences?
Not well. Publish the statement for users and keep the ACR or test report for procurement. If you must use one file, keep the statement section short and put the criterion-by-criterion detail in an appendix clearly marked as vendor disclosure.
More general questions are answered on the AccessProof FAQ.
Sources and last checked
Links opened on 24 October 2026. Standards and templates change; check the current edition before you complete one.
- ITI, VPAT subsection (editions, version 2.5Rev, conformance levels, FAQ):itic.org - checked 24 October 2026.
- Section508.gov, Accessibility Conformance Report:section508.gov - checked 24 October 2026.
- W3C WAI, developing an accessibility statement:w3.org - checked 24 October 2026.
- W3C WAI, minimal accessibility statement example:w3.org - checked 24 October 2026.