With the growing importance of digital accessibility and the imminent application of the European Accessibility Act in June 2025, insurers operating in the European Union will need to ensure that their web portals are accessible to all people, including those with disabilities. To know its current status, we have analyzed the accessibility of the most important insurers, identifying their main barriers and level of compliance.
In this analysis, we evaluated ten leading insurers in the sector, reviewing key aspects such as structured headers, labels on forms, language identification, consistent navigation and accessibility on mobile devices, among other criteria. Below, we detail the results obtained.
To carry out this ranking, key aspects were evaluated in the most common sections of airline web portals, such as the home page, the flight reservation process, the contact form and the registration section. Among the criteria analyzed are the ability to navigate only with the keyboard, the existence of alternative descriptions in images, the correct use of headings, color contrast, and accessibility in the forms.
Allianz
Allianz leads the ranking with a score of 6.10 and a partially compliant compliance status. However, it faces barriers in the structural grouping of web elements, has incorrect or undefined headers, failures in the identification of the main language and problems in mobile navigation (responsive design). In addition, deficiencies were also detected in the accessibility of the links and the existence of multiple navigation routes.
Zurich
As second in the ranking, we find Zurich, an insurer with a score of 5.80 and a partially compliant status. Its website also presents difficulties in the structural grouping of its elements, the identification of the language by parts and at a global level, and, as the main barrier, the website has bad practices in defining the purpose of its links.
Santalucia
Santalucía follows Zurich very closely with a score of 5.40 and also a partially compliant status. In summary, it has very similar errors to Zurich, but it also presents clear deficiencies in the accessibility of its headings, lists and contrast relationships. And, finally, errors have also been detected in the accessibility of its forms and the lack of multiple navigation paths.
Mapfre
Mapfre records a score of 5.30 with a partially compliant status. Although the grade is very similar to that obtained by Santalucia, Mapfre also has deficiencies in structural grouping, bad practices in the use of headings and the accessibility of its forms. Additionally, we found serious problems with correct language identification and text spacing.
Sanitas
Sanitas obtains a 5.30, thus being tied with Mapfre, so we are also talking about a partially compliant status. Its main flaws include problems in structural grouping, forms without accessible labels, and difficulties in coherent navigation. Errors in language identification were also found in different parts of the website.
Occident
Entering the part of the ranking with insufficient marks, we find Occident, with a score of 4.70, and being in a non-compliant state. Its main problems include poor navigation, poorly structured headers, inadequate text spacing, and form errors. And, finally, problems have been identified in language identification and accessibility on mobile devices (responsive design).
Axa
Axa follows very closely and obtains a score of 4.20 with a status of non-compliant. In this case, Axa presents quite significant errors in the definition of headings, lists, text spacing problems and lack of accessibility in its forms. In addition, the website has problems with the identification of the primary language, the navigation structure and the correct definition of page titles, which negatively impacts the experience of users with disabilities.
Generali
Generali ties Axa, also achieving a score of 4.20, with a non-compliant compliance level. Errors are evident in textual alternatives, heading structure, text spacing and accessibility in forms. Furthermore, consistent navigation and language identification in different sections of the site presents an obvious challenge for the insurer.
VidaCaixa
Placing itself on par with the two previous insurers, VidaCaixa finds itself with a 4.20 and a non-compliant status. Its main barriers include problems in structural grouping, accessibility in forms and deficiencies in language identification. Problems have also been detected in navigation and in the use of textual alternatives, among other errors.
Mutua
Mutua obtains the worst score with 1.60, reflecting a non-compliant status. It has serious barriers in headings, lists, forms, structural grouping, and coherent navigation. In addition, it has serious contrast problems, which makes access to information difficult for people with visual disabilities. Thus presenting the worst situation in terms of accessibility of the ranking.
Summary Table Level of Web Accessibility in Insurance Companies
| POSITION | STORE | LEVEL OF SUITABILITY | SCORE | SITUATION | ACCESSIBILITY STATEMENT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Allianz | AA | 6,10 | Partially compliant | Not available |
| 2 | Zurich | A | 5.80 | Partially compliant | Not available |
| 3 | Santalucia | A | 5.40 | Partially compliant | Not available |
| 4 | Mapfre | A | 5.30 | Partially compliant | Not available |
| 5 | Sanitas | A | 5.30 | Partially compliant | Not available |
| 6 | Occident | Not compliant | 4.70 | Not compliant | Not available |
| 7 | Axa | Not compliant | 4.20 | Not compliant | Not available |
| 8 | Generali | Not compliant | 4.20 | Not compliant | Not available |
| 9 | VidaCaixa | Not compliant | 4.20 | Not compliant | Not available |
| 10 | Mutual | Not compliant | 1.60 | Not compliant | Not available |
This analysis has been carried out with the Web Accessibility Observatory tool, where common errors in web accessibility have been considered such as lack of keyboard navigation, images without alt, contrast problems, poorly structured headers and forms without labels, among others.
