Compare / Markets / Blockchain, Crypto & Web3 vs Financial Services

compare_cohorts

Crypto vs Financial Services: Web3 outscores traditional finance

Blockchain and crypto providers outscore traditional financial services by 5.8 points and ship first-party MCP at twice the rate.

Blockchain, Crypto & Web3

26.8 average
thin on average
Agent readiness 16.9 · agent-aware
1311 scored providers · industry
VS

Financial Services

21 average
emerging on average
Agent readiness 11.3 · agent-aware
1183 scored providers · industry

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 coverageBlockchain, Crypto & Web3 scores 5.8 points higher than Financial Services AND is the better-enriched cohort: 4.3 points less catalog_gap and 5 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.

The 1,311 scored blockchain, crypto and Web3 providers average 26.8, against 21.0 for 1,183 financial-services firms. Crypto also leads on agent readiness (16.9 against 11.3), developer ergonomics (35.1 against 22.0) and contract quality (24.9 against 14.9). Crypto companies were API-first from the start. Exchanges, RPC nodes and wallets are all programmable by design.

MCP widens the gap. 19% of crypto providers ship a first-party MCP server, against 9% in financial services. Traditional finance wins the one adoption rate its regulators require: 17% publish OAuth scopes, against 6% in crypto. Financial services also has the higher ceiling, at 84.5.

The delta is depth-confounded, with five more artifact directories on the median crypto member. Treat the size of the gap with care. The direction is consistent across every facet but one.

The distributions

Blockchain, Crypto & Web3Financial ServicesDelta
Kin Score, mean26.821+5.8
Kin Score, median26.114.4+11.7
Kin Score, highest79.684.5
Kin Score, std dev16.816.6
Agent readiness, mean16.911.3+5.6
Agent readiness, highest69.170.4

Delta is Blockchain, Crypto & Web3 minus Financial Services, as the tool returns it.

Where the providers sit

Blockchain, Crypto & Web3

exemplar 14strong 60developing 262thin 318emerging 357minimal 300

Financial Services

exemplar 13strong 37developing 151thin 182emerging 368minimal 432

Facet averages

FacetBlockchain, Crypto & Web3Financial ServicesDelta
Discoverability 62.8 58.2 +4.6
Contract Quality 24.9 14.9 +10
Contract Governance 7.2 6.7 +0.5
Operational Transparency 17.3 10.8 +6.5
Developer Ergonomics 35.1 22 +13.1
Access Clarity 20.6 23.9 -3.3

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.

ArtifactBlockchain, Crypto & Web3Financial ServicesDelta
First-party MCP server19%9%+10
Any MCP artifact (incl. derived)19%9%+10
OAuth scopes6%17%-11
Spectral rules17%10%+7
Arazzo workflows2%1%+1
Agent skills0%0%0
Security artifact99%99%0

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.

Blockchain, Crypto & Web3Financial Services
Declared members13811264
Scored (in the averages)1311 (95%)1183 (94%)
Thinly covered11911111
Median artifact directories138
Mean catalog gap (points we could add)76.280.5
The full compare_cohorts response
{"a":{"kind":"industry","slug":"blockchain-crypto","name":"Blockchain, Crypto & Web3","members":1380,"stats":{"kind":"industry","slug":"blockchain-crypto","name":"Blockchain, Crypto & Web3","tier":"report","coverage":{"declared_members":1381,"resolved_members":1380,"scored_members":1311,"agent_scored_members":1311,"scored_share_pct":95,"unexamined_members":65,"enrichment_depth":{"mean_catalog_gap":76.2,"median_artifact_dirs":13,"n":1311,"thinly_covered":1191,"thinly_covered_of":1311,"thin_coverage_note":"1191 of 1311 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":26.8,"median":26.1,"min":0,"max":79.6,"stdev":16.8},"agent_readiness":{"mean":16.9,"median":16.8,"min":0,"max":69.1,"stdev":16.1},"band_distribution":{"exemplar":14,"strong":60,"developing":262,"thin":318,"emerging":357,"minimal":300},"facet_averages":{"discoverability":{"mean":62.8,"n":1311},"contract_quality":{"mean":24.9,"n":1311},"contract_governance":{"mean":7.2,"n":1311},"operational_transparency":{"mean":17.3,"n":1311},"developer_ergonomics":{"mean":35.1,"n":1311},"access_clarity":{"mean":20.6,"n":1311}},"adoption":{"mcp_pct":19,"mcp_first_party_pct":19,"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":6,"security_pct":99,"arazzo_pct":2,"rules_pct":17}}},"b":{"kind":"industry","slug":"financial-services","name":"Financial Services","members":1262,"stats":{"kind":"industry","slug":"financial-services","name":"Financial Services","tier":"report","coverage":{"declared_members":1264,"resolved_members":1262,"scored_members":1183,"agent_scored_members":1183,"scored_share_pct":94,"unexamined_members":72,"enrichment_depth":{"mean_catalog_gap":80.5,"median_artifact_dirs":8,"n":1183,"thinly_covered":1111,"thinly_covered_of":1183,"thin_coverage_note":"1111 of 1183 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":21,"median":14.4,"min":0,"max":84.5,"stdev":16.6},"agent_readiness":{"mean":11.3,"median":0.6,"min":0,"max":70.4,"stdev":15.5},"band_distribution":{"exemplar":13,"strong":37,"developing":151,"thin":182,"emerging":368,"minimal":432},"facet_averages":{"discoverability":{"mean":58.2,"n":1183},"contract_quality":{"mean":14.9,"n":1183},"contract_governance":{"mean":6.7,"n":1183},"operational_transparency":{"mean":10.8,"n":1183},"developer_ergonomics":{"mean":22,"n":1183},"access_clarity":{"mean":23.9,"n":1183}},"adoption":{"mcp_pct":9,"mcp_first_party_pct":9,"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":17,"security_pct":99,"arazzo_pct":1,"rules_pct":10}}},"comparable":true,"delta":{"kin_score_mean":5.8,"kin_score_median":11.7,"agent_readiness_mean":5.6,"facets":{"discoverability":4.6,"contract_quality":10,"contract_governance":0.5,"operational_transparency":6.5,"developer_ergonomics":13.1,"access_clarity":-3.3},"adoption":{"mcp_pct":10,"mcp_first_party_pct":10,"mcp_note":null,"skills_pct":0,"scopes_pct":-11,"security_pct":0,"arazzo_pct":1,"rules_pct":7},"enrichment_depth":{"mean_catalog_gap":-4.3,"median_artifact_dirs":5}},"depth_confounded":true,"depth_note":"Blockchain, Crypto & Web3 scores 5.8 points higher than Financial Services AND is the better-enriched cohort: 4.3 points less catalog_gap and 5 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. Blockchain, Crypto & Web3 and Financial Services 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": "industry:blockchain-crypto", "b": "industry:financial-services"}}
Over the REST API:
curl "https://apis.io/api/v1/cohorts/compare?a=industry:blockchain-crypto&b=industry:financial-services" \
  -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.