Comparing AMP score with the Level Access Platform scores

Item

AMP compliance score 

Conformance score (manual evaluations) 

Accessibility health score (automated scans)

Definition

Measures how well a digital asset complies with accessibility standards based on AMP testing.  

Measures the conformance level of the manual evaluation.

Measures accessibility status based on automated scans.

Calculation method

Calculated from the ground up rule-level → standard-level → report-level. 

Uses proprietary scoring and rounding down. 

1. Rule Level: Calculates compliance for each paragraph (rule) of an accessibility standard.
2. Standard Level: Aggregates rule scores to calculate compliance for the rules/criteria of mapped standards.
3. Report Level: Aggregates standard scores to calculate an overall compliance score for the report. 

AMP reports can combine the automated scans and manual evaluations results.

• Inspired by the VPAT methodology, it is based on the conformance level of each criterion. 

• The conformance level is determined by the highest severity of the associated findings.

• The final score is the total of the individual criteria scores.

• It is used on manual evaluations, applicable to any medium type (Web, mobile, other).

• Weighted average across scanned pages.

• Factors include rule Pass/Fail, Severity, and tool-specific rules.

   

Scale

Percentage (0–100%).  

Color-coded: 

• Red (0–69%)
• Yellow (70–99%)
• Green (100%)

• 0–100:

0–100:

• Weak (0–49)
• Average (50–79)
• Strong (80–100)

Use case

• Used in AMP reports to track compliance across standards and assets.

• Used after manual evaluations to assess conformance level and prioritize remediation.

• Used for ongoing on-demand scanning, monitoring and trend analysis.

Limitations

• The AMP compliance score is a legacy metric.
• Doesn’t account for usage frequency of modules; may inflate scores if non-applicable standards are passed.
• It does not take into account best practices; it has roll up scores at the asset level for multiple reports, and so on, and at the organization level for multiple assets
• The score may not be sensitive to the type of issues fixed (e.g., fixing low-priority vs. high-priority issues can have the same impact on the score). Criteria/rules can be weighted. While this is not true at the findings level, it is true at the rule/criteria level. 

• It is possible to improve the score by fixing many minor issues, even if critical issues remain. This is possible at the finding level - but not at the rule/criteria level as they are weighted - unless they are weighted equally. 

   

• Based on individual evaluations. In case of multiple evaluations, the score is not combined.

• Based only on automated scans.
• Not a full measure of WCAG conformance.
• Varies by testing tool.

Uses Access Engine

Yes

N/A

Yes