The headline should include "not well". Procurers Googling @DataWrapper accessibility would be reassured by this, and they'd be wrong. https://academy.datawrapper.de/article/206-how-we-make-sure-our-charts-maps-and-tables-are-accessible

This article outlines 3 actions:
Colorblind checker;
Export of data to somewhere accessible;
Anotation so a human can make it more accessible.
But what if you use a screen reader and want to check out the actual charts?

Tough muffins: you can't.
The data tables aren't defined as tables, so there's no reading by column or row.
The sort, search and other functions don't exist to a screen reader.
And that annotate tab, where accessible descriptions allegedly go?
A screen reader will never find it.

The @Datawrapper accessibility page says
"Naturally, accessibility is a tricky issue for charts and maps."
This is not natural; it's a consequence of systemic bias and design decisions that fail to use well-documented #A11Y practices to end the data drought for Blind people.

I'm sure there are folks at @Datawrapper who care about accessibility, and they probably aren't being given the power and resources to make things better.
This accessibility document, though, is cruel: it provides false reassurance and fails to honestly outline critical gaps.

Ask yourself: who is this document working for?
If you or your org are procuring tech, be aware that this happens; accessibility statements routinely, brazenly mislead.
There's no substitute for doing your own #a11y testing.