RGAA, WCAG or RAWeb: which standard applies to my website?
The short answer
It depends on your markets. WCAG is the W3C's international standard. The RGAA is France's verification method, and RAWeb 1.1 is its Luxembourg equivalent, extended to other technologies. So you audit against the RGAA in France, RAWeb in Luxembourg, and WCAG for an international website.
What's the difference between the RGAA, RAWeb and WCAG?
WCAG says what web content must allow people to do. The RGAA and RAWeb say how to verify it, with precise tests, in France and Luxembourg. In between, the European standard EN 301 549 serves as the technical reference.
| WCAG 2.2 | RGAA 4.1.2 | RAWeb 1.1 | EN 301 549 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Published by | W3C | DINUM (French State) | Service information et presse (Luxembourg) | ETSI, CEN, CENELEC |
| Reach | International | France | Luxembourg | European Union |
| Covers | Web content | Websites | Websites (RAAM covers mobile) | Digital products and services, including web and mobile |
| Format | Success criteria, levels A, AA, AAA | 106 criteria, 13 themes | 136 criteria, 17 themes | Requirements, which take up WCAG for the web |
So these standards don't compete with each other. According to DINUM, the current RGAA complies with the 50 level A and AA success criteria of WCAG 2.1. Its added value is precision: where a WCAG criterion leaves room for interpretation, the RGAA provides tests. That makes it easier for two auditors to reach the same result.
Why does RAWeb matter too?
RAWeb 1.1, published on 6 February 2026, contains content taken from RGAA 4.1.2 and is based on EN 301 549 V3.2.1. It goes further in scope, with 136 criteria across 17 themes, including one on real-time communication. Some of its criteria are specific to RAWeb, and some tests require checking components built in JavaScript with assistive technologies.
For a business selling in several French-speaking countries, it's a useful working basis: you stay very close to the RGAA, with a wider scope and a framework aligned with the European standard.
Which standard applies to my website?
It depends on who you are and what you offer.
- Public body, or a company with over €250 million in annual turnover in France: you fall under Article 47 of the French law of 11 February 2005. The RGAA is the reference method. The threshold is calculated on the average of the last three closed financial years.
- Service covered by the European Accessibility Act (e-commerce, banking, transport…): the obligation comes from the directive, whatever the size of the business, except for micro-enterprises providing services. The details are in my article on the EAA.
- Public body in Luxembourg: RAWeb is the defined standard under the law of 28 May 2019. A law of 8 March 2023 extends the obligation to certain products and services.
- Belgium: public checks by FPS BOSA rely on WCAG 2.1. Since RAWeb rests on the same European base and exists in French, it can serve as a detailed audit grid, but I haven't found a Belgian text giving it official status.
- International website, or a client outside these countries: WCAG is the common language. An auditor or developer abroad will know it, which isn't always true of the RGAA or RAWeb.
- Native mobile app: the RGAA method doesn't cover it. You use EN 301 549, or Luxembourg's RAAM as a test method.
Which one should I choose for an audit?
The standard is decided at the scoping stage, based on what the audit has to prove. Here's what I recommend:
- You must publish an accessibility statement in France: an RGAA audit, because the expected conformity rate is expressed in RGAA criteria.
- You're a Luxembourg public body: a RAWeb 1.1 audit.
- You sell in France, Belgium and Luxembourg: RAWeb 1.1 or the RGAA depending on your main obligation, keeping the mapping to WCAG for your teams.
- You sell in several European countries: an audit against WCAG 2.2 level AA, which all your teams and providers will understand.
- France and international at once: an RGAA audit, completed with the WCAG 2.2 criteria it doesn't yet cover.
The right choice depends on the market and the proof you need. That's why I work with all four standards: RGAA, WCAG 2.2, RAWeb and RAAM.
What does the move to WCAG 2.2 change?
WCAG 2.2 adds nine criteria, six of them at levels A and AA:
| Criterion | Level | What it asks for |
|---|---|---|
| 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured | AA | The element with keyboard focus isn't entirely hidden, for example by a sticky header |
| 2.5.7 Dragging Movements | AA | There's an alternative to any drag-and-drop action |
| 2.5.8 Target Size | AA | Clickable targets measure at least 24 × 24 pixels, with exceptions |
| 3.2.6 Consistent Help | A | Ways of getting help stay in the same place from page to page |
| 3.3.7 Redundant Entry | A | Information already given in the same journey isn't asked for again |
| 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication | AA | Logging in doesn't require a cognitive test, such as memorising a password without being able to paste it |
These criteria target very common actions: filling in a form, logging in, tapping a button on a phone. You can check them now, without waiting for a new version of the RGAA.
What are RGAA 5 and RAWeb 2 bringing?
The standards are moving on both sides, in the same direction: WCAG 2.2.
- RGAA 5: DINUM says this version is being written, with publication planned for the end of 2026. Until it's published, version 4.1.2 remains in force.
- RAWeb 2 and RAAM 2: Luxembourg plans to publish them during February 2027, linked to EN 301 549 version 4.1.1, which notably includes WCAG 2.2.
A practical point if you have an accessibility statement: it will need updating 18 months after a new version of the standard is published, if you apply the technical method.
To find out where your website stands, the audit options are on the Accessibility page.
Frequently asked questions
Is an RGAA-compliant website compliant with WCAG 2.2?
Not entirely. RGAA 4.1.2 is based on the 50 level A and AA success criteria of WCAG 2.1. WCAG 2.2 adds six criteria at those levels, such as minimum target size or an alternative to dragging, which an RGAA 4.1.2 audit doesn't necessarily check.
Is an RGAA audit valid in Luxembourg?
Not as it stands for a Luxembourg public body: RAWeb is the standard defined for them. The two methods are close, though, since RAWeb 1.1 contains content taken from RGAA 4.1.2. It has 136 criteria, against 106 for the RGAA, so those need checking as well.
Does the RGAA apply to mobile apps?
The RGAA 4.1.2 method doesn't cover native mobile apps. For those, the French digital directorate (DINUM) points directly to the EN 301 549 standard. In Luxembourg, RAAM offers a method dedicated to mobile apps.
Should I wait for RGAA 5 before having my website audited?
I wouldn't advise it. The most common fixes (contrast, keyboard, forms, structure) remain valid from one version to the next. If your schedule allows, simply add the WCAG 2.2 level AA criteria to the scope, to get ahead.
Sources
- RGAA 4.1.2: introduction to the technical method (French) · DINUM
- RGAA: scope of the obligation (French) · DINUM
- New version of the RGAA (French) · DesignGouv, DINUM
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 · W3C
- What's New in WCAG 2.2 · W3C
- RAAM: mobile app accessibility assessment framework · Government of Luxembourg
- RAWeb 1.1: web accessibility assessment framework · Service information et presse, Luxembourg
- RAWeb and RAAM: version 2 and EN 301 549 version 4 (French) · Service information et presse, Luxembourg
- 2024 report on the digital accessibility of the Belgian public sector (French) · Belgian Web Accessibility, FPS BOSA