Free VPAT template (WCAG 2.2 edition)
A VPAT — Voluntary Product Accessibility Template — is the standardized document vendors use to disclose how a product conforms to accessibility standards, most often to answer a procurement team's or enterprise buyer's question. Below is the real structure of a VPAT 2.5, WCAG Edition report: every section, the exact conformance terms reviewers read literally, and a worked example row. No signup required.
Already fielding vendor accessibility questions, not just VPAT requests? See our guide to the enterprise vendor accessibility questionnaire — the two usually show up in the same procurement cycle.
What a VPAT actually is — and isn't
A completed VPAT is a self-disclosure document, not a certification. There is no accreditation body that "certifies" a VPAT as accurate — its credibility rests entirely on the honesty and rigor of the audit behind it. Procurement, legal, and security reviewers at enterprise and government buyers commonly read it, and sometimes cross-check it against your live product with their own accessibility testers. That's the main reason a rushed or aspirational VPAT does more harm than good: an inflated claim that fails a spot-check is worse for trust — and for legal exposure — than an honest "Partially Supports" with a stated fix date.
There are several VPAT editions (WCAG, Revised Section 508, EU, and INT, which combines all three). The WCAG Edition shown here reports conformance directly against WCAG 2.2 success criteria, and maps cleanly onto Section 508's 2018 refresh, which incorporates WCAG 2.0 AA by reference — so it's the right starting point for most SaaS and e-commerce vendors, even ones expecting a federal buyer eventually.
The report structure, free
Front matter
Every VPAT 2.5 WCAG Edition report opens with the same seven fields:
- Name of Product/Version
- Report Date
- Product Description (one to three sentences)
- Contact Information — a named accessibility contact
- Notes — scoping details (e.g. what subdomains or product areas the report covers, and what it explicitly excludes)
- Evaluation Methods Used (e.g. automated testing plus manual keyboard and screen-reader testing)
- Applicable Standards — almost always WCAG 2.2 Level A and Level AA today
Four conformance tables
The body of the report is four tables — Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, Robust — the same four principles (POUR) that organize WCAG itself. Each table gets one row per success criterion, with three columns: Criterion, Conformance Level, and Remarks and Explanations. A complete WCAG 2.2 A/AA report has 55 rows across the four tables — one for every applicable success criterion.
The five conformance terms (read literally by reviewers)
| Term | Means |
|---|---|
| Supports | Fully meets the criterion, no known exceptions. |
| Partially Supports | Some functionality doesn't meet the criterion — Remarks should say specifically what does and doesn't work. |
| Does Not Support | The majority of relevant functionality doesn't meet the criterion. |
| Not Applicable | The criterion doesn't apply (e.g. a captions criterion, in a product with no audio/video). |
| Not Evaluated | Not yet tested. Use sparingly — a high count reads to sophisticated reviewers as an incomplete or rushed audit. |
One worked example row
1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum) (AA) — Conformance Level: Supports
Remarks: All text and UI text meet or exceed the 4.5:1 (normal text) and 3:1 (large text) contrast ratios required by WCAG 2.2 AA, verified with automated contrast checking plus manual spot-checks of the design system's color tokens.
Notice what makes that Remarks entry useful: it names the specific criterion, states a clear result, and says exactly how it was verified. A Remarks field that just says "Yes" or "Compliant" is close to worthless to a reviewer who reads VPATs for a living — and won't survive scrutiny from a procurement team that runs its own scanner against your product.
What the full Pro Kit template adds
The outline above is the real report structure — but filling 55 rows from scratch, correctly, is the hard part. The AccessibleDocs Pro Kit includes the complete VPAT 2.5 WCAG Edition template with:
- A fill-in guide mapping every placeholder to what should go in it
- Five fully worked example rows across all four principle tables (Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, Robust), showing Supports, Partially Supports, and Does Not Support completion style
- Direct alignment with the kit's WCAG 2.2 self-audit checklist — the same 55-criterion list becomes your VPAT's source of truth, so the two documents never drift apart
- The full "honest reporting guidance" section — how to write Remarks that survive a buyer's scrutiny, and why overclaiming backfires
- The 28-question enterprise vendor questionnaire answer bank, for when the VPAT alone isn't enough to close a deal
Answer the VPAT request without starting from a blank page
Pro Kit ($249) includes the full VPAT 2.5 / ACR template, the enterprise questionnaire answer bank, and everything in Core — the WCAG 2.2 self-audit checklist, accessibility statement, remediation plan, and internal policy.
Get Pro — $249 Compare Core vs ProFAQ
Is a VPAT the same as a compliance certificate?
No. A VPAT is a self-disclosure document, not a certification — there's no accreditation body that verifies its accuracy. Its value comes entirely from the honesty and rigor of the audit it's based on.
Which VPAT edition should I use?
For most SaaS and e-commerce vendors, the WCAG Edition is the right default — it reports directly against WCAG 2.2 success criteria and maps cleanly onto Section 508's 2018 refresh if a federal buyer later asks for that framing.
Is this legal advice?
No. This page and the linked templates are professional documentation resources, not legal advice, and using them does not create an attorney-client relationship. A completed VPAT should reflect an honest, current audit of your actual product — have qualified counsel review it before it goes to a buyer, especially in a regulated sector.