Compare / Markets / Artificial Intelligence vs Machine Learning

compare_cohorts

AI vs Machine Learning: the newer label scores lower

Providers tagged machine learning edge out the far larger AI cohort on score and developer ergonomics. AI has the higher ceiling and more first-party MCP.

Artificial Intelligence

22.9 average
emerging on average
Agent readiness 11.5 · agent-aware
4305 scored providers · tag
VS

Machine Learning

24.1 average
emerging on average
Agent readiness 11.6 · agent-aware
1025 scored providers · tag

Each sun is drawn from the cohort's averages: six facet rings, the mean Kin Score and mean agent readiness.

Check this first: the gap is partly our coverageMachine Learning scores 1.2 points higher than Artificial Intelligence AND is the better-enriched cohort: 0.9 points less catalog_gap and 1 more artifact directories on the median member. The market difference and our coverage difference point the same way, so this delta cannot be attributed to the markets on its own. Close the enrichment gap, or report both figures together.

“AI” is now the label every company reaches for, and the cohort shows it. 4,305 scored providers carry the AI tag against 1,025 tagged machine learning. The older, narrower label scores slightly better: 24.1 against 22.9 on average, with a clear lead on developer ergonomics (28.8 against 23.1) and operational transparency (13.9 against 11.7).

AI has the higher ceiling, a top score of 95.3 and 56 exemplars. It also wins two things that matter to agents: access clarity (31.9 against 26.9) and first-party MCP adoption (17% against 13%). The AI cohort holds both the frontier labs and a long tail of new companies with a landing page and little else, and its median of 17.4 reflects that tail.

On agent readiness the two are effectively equal (11.5 against 11.6). The delta is small and depth-confounded, so the honest summary is that the label matters less than the company behind it.

The distributions

Artificial IntelligenceMachine LearningDelta
Kin Score, mean22.924.1-1.2
Kin Score, median17.418.3-0.9
Kin Score, highest95.389
Kin Score, std dev17.118.8
Agent readiness, mean11.511.6-0.1
Agent readiness, highest80.563.5

Delta is Artificial Intelligence minus Machine Learning, as the tool returns it.

Where the providers sit

Artificial Intelligence

exemplar 56strong 205developing 585thin 684emerging 1379minimal 1396

Machine Learning

exemplar 13strong 71developing 167thin 166emerging 228minimal 380

Facet averages

FacetArtificial IntelligenceMachine LearningDelta
Discoverability 58.4 59.1 -0.7
Contract Quality 14 16.7 -2.7
Contract Governance 6.5 6.5 0
Operational Transparency 11.7 13.9 -2.2
Developer Ergonomics 23.1 28.8 -5.7
Access Clarity 31.9 26.9 +5

What they publish

Share of each cohort's providers publishing each artifact. mcp_pct counts any mcp/ artifact including ones API Evangelist derived from the provider OpenAPI; mcp_first_party_pct counts only servers the provider publishes. Prefer the latter.

ArtifactArtificial IntelligenceMachine LearningDelta
First-party MCP server17%13%+4
Any MCP artifact (incl. derived)18%15%+3
OAuth scopes8%8%0
Spectral rules12%13%-1
Arazzo workflows2%3%-1
Agent skills0%0%0
Security artifact99%97%+2

How well we know each cohort

The coverage behind the averages. A cohort with a higher catalog gap and fewer artifact directories has been enriched less, so part of any difference is our coverage rather than the market.

Artificial IntelligenceMachine Learning
Declared members45241121
Scored (in the averages)4305 (95%)1025 (91%)
Thinly covered3929912
Median artifact directories89
Mean catalog gap (points we could add)78.477.5
The full compare_cohorts response
{"a":{"kind":"tag","slug":"artificial-intelligence","name":"Artificial Intelligence","members":4524,"stats":{"kind":"tag","slug":"artificial-intelligence","name":"Artificial Intelligence","tier":"report","coverage":{"declared_members":4524,"resolved_members":4524,"scored_members":4305,"agent_scored_members":4305,"scored_share_pct":95,"unexamined_members":207,"enrichment_depth":{"mean_catalog_gap":78.4,"median_artifact_dirs":8,"n":4305,"thinly_covered":3929,"thinly_covered_of":4305,"thin_coverage_note":"3929 of 4305 scored members had under half their catalog-attributable points satisfied at all (catalog_earned / catalog_max < 0.5). They are INCLUDED in the mean above. A large share here means the cohort mean is partly a measurement of how far our enrichment reached, not only of how these providers publish.","note":"Rubric points API Evangelist could add to the average member with no action by the providers, and the median count of artifact directories we hold on them. A cohort with a higher gap and thinner artifacts has been enriched less, so part of any difference between its mean and another cohort's is our coverage rather than the market. Compare two cohorts only when this figure is comparable. It is an upper bound on our backlog: it says who CAN close a gap, not who did."},"unexamined_note":"Excluded from the distribution: these carry a catalog-owned needs_work flag (never enriched, or no resolvable host). They are listed as members and keep their own page and score; they do not vote in the averages, because their score measures our coverage rather than their posture."},"sufficient":true,"kin_score":{"mean":22.9,"median":17.4,"min":0,"max":95.3,"stdev":17.1},"agent_readiness":{"mean":11.5,"median":2.5,"min":0,"max":80.5,"stdev":15.6},"band_distribution":{"exemplar":56,"strong":205,"developing":585,"thin":684,"emerging":1379,"minimal":1396},"facet_averages":{"discoverability":{"mean":58.4,"n":4305},"contract_quality":{"mean":14,"n":4305},"contract_governance":{"mean":6.5,"n":4305},"operational_transparency":{"mean":11.7,"n":4305},"developer_ergonomics":{"mean":23.1,"n":4305},"access_clarity":{"mean":31.9,"n":4305}},"adoption":{"mcp_pct":18,"mcp_first_party_pct":17,"mcp_note":"mcp_pct counts any mcp/ artifact including ones API Evangelist derived from the provider OpenAPI; mcp_first_party_pct counts only servers the provider publishes. Prefer the latter.","skills_pct":0,"scopes_pct":8,"security_pct":99,"arazzo_pct":2,"rules_pct":12}}},"b":{"kind":"tag","slug":"machine-learning","name":"Machine Learning","members":1121,"stats":{"kind":"tag","slug":"machine-learning","name":"Machine Learning","tier":"report","coverage":{"declared_members":1121,"resolved_members":1121,"scored_members":1025,"agent_scored_members":1025,"scored_share_pct":91,"unexamined_members":77,"enrichment_depth":{"mean_catalog_gap":77.5,"median_artifact_dirs":9,"n":1025,"thinly_covered":912,"thinly_covered_of":1025,"thin_coverage_note":"912 of 1025 scored members had under half their catalog-attributable points satisfied at all (catalog_earned / catalog_max < 0.5). They are INCLUDED in the mean above. A large share here means the cohort mean is partly a measurement of how far our enrichment reached, not only of how these providers publish.","note":"Rubric points API Evangelist could add to the average member with no action by the providers, and the median count of artifact directories we hold on them. A cohort with a higher gap and thinner artifacts has been enriched less, so part of any difference between its mean and another cohort's is our coverage rather than the market. Compare two cohorts only when this figure is comparable. It is an upper bound on our backlog: it says who CAN close a gap, not who did."},"unexamined_note":"Excluded from the distribution: these carry a catalog-owned needs_work flag (never enriched, or no resolvable host). They are listed as members and keep their own page and score; they do not vote in the averages, because their score measures our coverage rather than their posture."},"sufficient":true,"kin_score":{"mean":24.1,"median":18.3,"min":0,"max":89,"stdev":18.8},"agent_readiness":{"mean":11.6,"median":2.5,"min":0,"max":63.5,"stdev":14.5},"band_distribution":{"exemplar":13,"strong":71,"developing":167,"thin":166,"emerging":228,"minimal":380},"facet_averages":{"discoverability":{"mean":59.1,"n":1025},"contract_quality":{"mean":16.7,"n":1025},"contract_governance":{"mean":6.5,"n":1025},"operational_transparency":{"mean":13.9,"n":1025},"developer_ergonomics":{"mean":28.8,"n":1025},"access_clarity":{"mean":26.9,"n":1025}},"adoption":{"mcp_pct":15,"mcp_first_party_pct":13,"mcp_note":"mcp_pct counts any mcp/ artifact including ones API Evangelist derived from the provider OpenAPI; mcp_first_party_pct counts only servers the provider publishes. Prefer the latter.","skills_pct":0,"scopes_pct":8,"security_pct":97,"arazzo_pct":3,"rules_pct":13}}},"comparable":true,"delta":{"kin_score_mean":-1.2,"kin_score_median":-0.9,"agent_readiness_mean":-0.1,"facets":{"discoverability":-0.7,"contract_quality":-2.7,"contract_governance":0,"operational_transparency":-2.2,"developer_ergonomics":-5.7,"access_clarity":5},"adoption":{"mcp_pct":3,"mcp_first_party_pct":4,"mcp_note":null,"skills_pct":0,"scopes_pct":0,"security_pct":2,"arazzo_pct":-1,"rules_pct":-1},"enrichment_depth":{"mean_catalog_gap":0.9,"median_artifact_dirs":-1}},"depth_confounded":true,"depth_note":"Machine Learning scores 1.2 points higher than Artificial Intelligence AND is the better-enriched cohort: 0.9 points less catalog_gap and 1 more artifact directories on the median member. The market difference and our coverage difference point the same way, so this delta cannot be attributed to the markets on its own. Close the enrichment gap, or report both figures together."}

Result read 2026-10-27. Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning each have their own page with the full roster and leaderboard.

Run this comparison yourself

Everything above came from one call to compare_cohorts. Swap in any two tags, industries, regions, areas or VC portfolios and you get the same answer for your own shortlist. It is an Understanding tool, included in the Understanding and Influence plans, or pay per call.

From any MCP client connected to https://apis.io/mcp:
{"name": "compare_cohorts", "arguments": {"a": "tag:artificial-intelligence", "b": "tag:machine-learning"}}
Over the REST API:
curl "https://apis.io/api/v1/cohorts/compare?a=tag:artificial-intelligence&b=tag:machine-learning" \
  -H "X-API-Key: $APIS_IO_KEY"
See the Understanding plan Connect the MCP server →

More comparisons

Work with this as data

Every comparison here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.

MCP server

One button, every client — Claude, Cursor, VS Code and the rest.

https://apis.io/mcp

Tools for market comparisons

5 MCP tools reach this
  • compare_providersUNDERSTANDING — two or more providers side by side: facets, artifacts, economics.
  • compare_cohortsUNDERSTANDING — two markets on one rubric, with the coverage check.
  • find_cohortsEvery scored population of providers in the catalog.
  • find_similar_providersProviders that look like a given one — a shortlist to compare.
  • gap_analysisINFLUENCE — what each provider is missing that the others publish.
All 92 tools →

Call it yourself

curl for this page
Compare two cohorts
curl "https://apis.io/api/v1/cohorts/compare?a=industry:payments&b=industry:banking" \
  -H "X-API-Key: $APIS_IO_KEY"
Find cohorts to compare
curl "https://apis.io/api/v1/cohorts?tier=report&limit=25" \
  -H "X-API-Key: $APIS_IO_KEY"

Discovery needs no key. Ratings and market analysis are Pro.

Get an API key

Free tier, no form to fill in. Signing in shares your email address with us — we store it to create your key and to recognise you if you sign in with another provider. See our Privacy Policy and Terms.

A second provider on the same verified email joins the account you already have.