Origin Energy and EDF Energy each sell gas and electricity to around five million customer accounts, Origin in Australia and EDF in Great Britain. Both run their retail business on Kraken, the platform licensed from Octopus Energy Group. On the Gas tag Origin scores 64.8 and EDF 62.7, a gap of 2.1 points on the Kin Score. The Kin Score measures the public API surface, not the company or the quality of its energy supply. Those two numbers hide a sharp split: one of these companies keeps its API behind a gate and the other leaves it open. One note on the ranking: EDF is third on the tag page, not second. The provider in second place is AEMO, the Australian market operator. Our tooling skipped it as “same company as Origin” because both sit on Australian domains. That is a heuristic error, but AEMO runs the market and does not sell gas, so this is the comparison a buyer would actually make.
The business. The two companies are in the same trade and work under different laws. Origin is a designated data holder under Australia’s Consumer Data Right, and it implements that properly. It is on the CDR Register, serves the Consumer Data Standards discovery endpoints anonymously, and uses an mTLS endpoint certified by the ACCC’s own certificate authority. All of the customer data behind it, though, is reachable only by an accredited data recipient acting with a consumer’s consent. Its Kraken partner portal can be read in public but not used self-serve. The record lists access as gated, approval onboarding. Britain has no consumer data-portability right, so nothing requires EDF to publish anything, and it publishes anyway. Its Kraken developer portal is fully public, onboarding is open, and its tariff data comes back anonymously: the products endpoint returned 21 live EDF products without a key. Neither company lists a price for API access.
The APIs. Origin has 25 API pages, 22 OpenAPI files, one AsyncAPI, 39 JSON Schemas and 95 artifact pointers in total. EDF has 16 API pages, 15 OpenAPI files, one GraphQL schema and 32 pointers. Neither has a contract that API Evangelist derived. Both registries match their builds: 22 and 15 OpenAPI files registered, 22 and 15 published. The two surfaces are mostly the same Kraken modules: account import, orders, quotes, voice and external events appear on both. The difference comes from regulation. Origin adds a full set of CDR data-holder APIs: Electricity Usage, Account Billing and Distributed Energy Resources, plus a Kraken events catalogue. EDF instead exposes a GraphQL API whose schema anyone can introspect without an account, and a Products API with 10 operations. Only 59.1% of Origin’s contracts are callable as published, against 100.0% of EDF’s.
The experience, facet by facet. Origin wins three facets and EDF wins three. Origin takes contract governance 80.9 to 18.2, the widest gap in the pairing, plus operational transparency 84.2 to 57.9 and contract quality 70.7 to 53.9. Contract quality is the heaviest facet at 0.25. EDF takes access clarity 44.7 to 0.0, developer ergonomics 66.1 to 51.8 and discoverability 79.5 to 78.6, which is less than a point. Access clarity asks whether a developer can tell how to get in and then actually get in. Origin’s zero is what an accreditation-only front door scores, however well the documentation behind it is written. The six weighted facets give a base of 56.5 for Origin and 53.3 for EDF. Both then carry the same Energy & Utilities regulatory layer. EDF scores higher on it (47.5 against 39.3), so the conditional layers add 9.4 points to EDF and 8.3 to Origin. That narrows the gap without closing it. Both sides are scored on the same facets.
Agent readiness. Here the ranking flips. Origin scores 40.5 and is recorded as agent-ready. EDF scores 38.7 and is recorded as agent-native. The band is gated, not read off the score: agent-native requires a floor score plus specific safety and contract checks, and the page records EDF as clearing the gate and Origin as not. On the published dimensions the two mostly agree: both have documented idempotency, verified error semantics, served auth and documented rate-limit signals. EDF’s OpenAPI examples are verified while Origin’s are partial. Origin alone describes an event surface. Neither has an MCP server, an agent card, protected resource metadata or a consent-identity mechanism. The agent skills and agentic-access profiles on both sides were derived by us, so neither company gets credit for them.
The verdict. If you are an accredited CDR data recipient in Australia, or a Kraken partner with an Origin agreement, Origin offers the deeper surface: more contracts, better governance around them, and the regulated usage and billing data. If you are a developer who wants to call an energy retailer’s API this afternoon, EDF is the only one of the two that lets you: open onboarding, anonymous tariff data, and every contract callable. The composite rewards Origin for paperwork and EDF for opening the door, and the 2.1-point gap understates how different the two are to use. EDF’s number would move furthest by closing the governance gap, adding versioning, change history and lifecycle signals to the contracts it already publishes, which accounts for most of the 62.7-point deficit on that facet. Origin cannot move its access-clarity zero while CDR accreditation is the only way in. It could still publish a sandbox or an open plan-data endpoint on its own host, and that would score.