VPAT and ACR writing services compared

Which edition your buyer is asking for

The current template is VPAT 2.5Rev, released in April 2025, in four editions: 508, EU (EN 301 549), WCAG, and INT (all three). They do not carry the same WCAG version: the 508 edition carries WCAG 2.0, the EU edition WCAG 2.1, and the WCAG and INT editions WCAG 2.2. Pick the buyer below to see which one to ask for.

If the solicitation names an edition, use that one: ITI tells vendors to follow a solicitation's own directions. The federal case is covered in what Section 508 is, and the state and local one in the DOJ Title II web rule.

What a usable ACR row looks like

Each row of an ACR gives a criterion, one of four conformance terms (Supports, Partially Supports, Does Not Support, Not Applicable) and a remark that explains it. The remark is where a firm earns its fee. Here is the standard to hold a report to:

Each remark says what was tested, what failed and where, so the buyer can judge the gap for their own users. A contrast check gives you the 1.4.3 numbers before a firm does. Then read a draft for the warning signs below.

• “Supports with exceptions” anywhere in it

  ITI replaced that term with “Partially Supports” at the request of the US Access Board. A report that still uses it was written on an old template.

• A “certified” or “approved” VPAT

  There is no VPAT certification, and ITI does not review or approve reports. A firm that sells one is selling a word.

• An empty Evaluation Methods Used field

  Every edition has it. If it is blank, or names only an automated scanner, nobody can tell how the levels were reached.

• Supports on every row, remarks left blank

  Microassist, which writes these reports, says most products do not fully support every requirement. A wall of Supports with no remarks reads as untested.

• No product version or report date

  Without them a buyer cannot tell which release was tested. The current template is VPAT 2.5Rev, released in April 2025.

Writing the ACR yourself or hiring a firm

GSA's Section508.gov recommends that vendors selling ICT to the federal government publish an ACR, and it offers a free ACR Editor in the OpenACR format (see Section508.gov on ACRs). If someone on your team can test with a keyboard and a screen reader, our VPAT template ACR builder and the WCAG 2.2 AA checklist cover the self-written route; the background is in what a VPAT is.

Hire a firm when the bid asks for a third party, when nobody in-house has tested with assistive technology, or when the product is large enough that a missed criterion would be costly to explain later. If what you need is a full audit of a website rather than a report on a product, compare WCAG audit services instead.

Six questions to ask a firm before you sign

• Which edition and which WCAG version will you report against?

  The answer should come from your buyer's paperwork, not the firm's habit. If you are moving from 2.1 to 2.2, read what changed in WCAG 2.2 first.

• Which screens and user flows are in scope, and will the report say so?

  Every edition has a Notes field for the report and for each table. A report that names the flows it covered is one a buyer can trust.

• Which screen readers, browsers and devices will the testers use?

  A firm that names the screen reader and browser it pairs is describing real testing. For what that testing involves, see our guide to screen reader testing.

• Will every criterion carry a remark, including the ones marked Supports?

  A remark on a Supports row says how it was checked. Without it the level is a claim, not a finding.

• Whose name goes on the report?

  ITI says either party can complete the VPAT. Some buyers want a third party named; ask before testing starts, not after.

• What happens after we fix things?

  Ask whether the firm retests, reissues, or charges for a new report, and what it costs to update the ACR for the next release.