compare_cohorts
Energy vs Climate & Sustainability: the incumbents lead, narrowly
Energy providers edge climate and sustainability companies by 1.9 points, but the climate cohort has the higher ceiling.
Energy
Climate & Sustainability
Each sun is drawn from the cohort's averages: six facet rings, the mean Kin Score and mean agent readiness.
Energy and climate are converging markets: utilities, grid operators and fuel companies on one side, carbon accounting, sustainability data and clean-tech on the other. The 735 scored energy providers average 17.1, against 15.2 for 1,176 climate and sustainability companies.
Energy leads on contract quality (11.2 against 9.3), operational transparency (8.8 against 6.1) and developer ergonomics (16.7 against 13.7). It is also more likely to publish OAuth scopes (11% against 7%), which suits the utility data-sharing rules some regions require. The climate cohort leads in two places: it has the higher ceiling (78.0 against 66.5), with four exemplars to energy’s one, and it is twice as likely to ship a first-party MCP server (4% against 2%).
Both are thinly covered: 697 of 735 energy providers and 1,111 of 1,176 climate providers have less than half their catalog points satisfied. The delta is depth-confounded by one artifact directory, so treat the direction as tentative.
The distributions
| Energy | Climate & Sustainability | Delta | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kin Score, mean | 17.1 | 15.2 | +1.9 |
| Kin Score, median | 10.9 | 10.2 | +0.7 |
| Kin Score, highest | 66.5 | 78 | |
| Kin Score, std dev | 15.2 | 13.6 | |
| Agent readiness, mean | 8.1 | 6.7 | +1.4 |
| Agent readiness, highest | 60 | 65.1 |
Delta is Energy minus Climate & Sustainability, as the tool returns it.
Where the providers sit
Energy
Climate & Sustainability
Facet averages
| Facet | Energy | Climate & Sustainability | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discoverability | 55.3 | 54.9 | +0.4 |
| Contract Quality | 11.2 | 9.3 | +1.9 |
| Contract Governance | 5.2 | 3.9 | +1.3 |
| Operational Transparency | 8.8 | 6.1 | +2.7 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 16.7 | 13.7 | +3 |
| Access Clarity | 17.3 | 17.4 | -0.1 |
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.
| Artifact | Energy | Climate & Sustainability | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| First-party MCP server | 2% | 4% | -2 |
| Any MCP artifact (incl. derived) | 3% | 6% | -3 |
| OAuth scopes | 11% | 7% | +4 |
| Spectral rules | 9% | 8% | +1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 1% | 1% | 0 |
| Agent skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| Security artifact | 99% | 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.
| Energy | Climate & Sustainability | |
|---|---|---|
| Declared members | 800 | 1282 |
| Scored (in the averages) | 735 (92%) | 1176 (92%) |
| Thinly covered | 697 | 1111 |
| Median artifact directories | 7 | 6 |
| Mean catalog gap (points we could add) | 81.5 | 82.5 |
The full compare_cohorts response
{"a":{"kind":"industry","slug":"energy","name":"Energy","members":800,"stats":{"kind":"industry","slug":"energy","name":"Energy","tier":"report","coverage":{"declared_members":800,"resolved_members":800,"scored_members":735,"agent_scored_members":735,"scored_share_pct":92,"unexamined_members":63,"enrichment_depth":{"mean_catalog_gap":81.5,"median_artifact_dirs":7,"n":735,"thinly_covered":697,"thinly_covered_of":735,"thin_coverage_note":"697 of 735 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":17.1,"median":10.9,"min":0,"max":66.5,"stdev":15.2},"agent_readiness":{"mean":8.1,"median":0,"min":0,"max":60,"stdev":12.7},"band_distribution":{"exemplar":1,"strong":23,"developing":75,"thin":69,"emerging":196,"minimal":371},"facet_averages":{"discoverability":{"mean":55.3,"n":735},"contract_quality":{"mean":11.2,"n":735},"contract_governance":{"mean":5.2,"n":735},"operational_transparency":{"mean":8.8,"n":735},"developer_ergonomics":{"mean":16.7,"n":735},"access_clarity":{"mean":17.3,"n":735}},"adoption":{"mcp_pct":3,"mcp_first_party_pct":2,"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":11,"security_pct":99,"arazzo_pct":1,"rules_pct":9}}},"b":{"kind":"industry","slug":"climate-sustainability","name":"Climate & Sustainability","members":1282,"stats":{"kind":"industry","slug":"climate-sustainability","name":"Climate & Sustainability","tier":"report","coverage":{"declared_members":1282,"resolved_members":1282,"scored_members":1176,"agent_scored_members":1176,"scored_share_pct":92,"unexamined_members":104,"enrichment_depth":{"mean_catalog_gap":82.5,"median_artifact_dirs":6,"n":1176,"thinly_covered":1111,"thinly_covered_of":1176,"thin_coverage_note":"1111 of 1176 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":15.2,"median":10.2,"min":0,"max":78,"stdev":13.6},"agent_readiness":{"mean":6.7,"median":0,"min":0,"max":65.1,"stdev":12},"band_distribution":{"exemplar":4,"strong":19,"developing":83,"thin":107,"emerging":315,"minimal":648},"facet_averages":{"discoverability":{"mean":54.9,"n":1176},"contract_quality":{"mean":9.3,"n":1176},"contract_governance":{"mean":3.9,"n":1176},"operational_transparency":{"mean":6.1,"n":1176},"developer_ergonomics":{"mean":13.7,"n":1176},"access_clarity":{"mean":17.4,"n":1176}},"adoption":{"mcp_pct":6,"mcp_first_party_pct":4,"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":7,"security_pct":99,"arazzo_pct":1,"rules_pct":8}}},"comparable":true,"delta":{"kin_score_mean":1.9,"kin_score_median":0.7,"agent_readiness_mean":1.4,"facets":{"discoverability":0.4,"contract_quality":1.9,"contract_governance":1.3,"operational_transparency":2.7,"developer_ergonomics":3,"access_clarity":-0.1},"adoption":{"mcp_pct":-3,"mcp_first_party_pct":-2,"mcp_note":null,"skills_pct":0,"scopes_pct":4,"security_pct":0,"arazzo_pct":0,"rules_pct":1},"enrichment_depth":{"mean_catalog_gap":-1,"median_artifact_dirs":1}},"depth_confounded":true,"depth_note":"Energy scores 1.9 points higher than Climate & Sustainability AND is the better-enriched cohort: 1 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. Energy and Climate & Sustainability 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.
https://apis.io/mcp:
{"name": "compare_cohorts", "arguments": {"a": "industry:energy", "b": "industry:climate-sustainability"}}
Over the REST API:
curl "https://apis.io/api/v1/cohorts/compare?a=industry:energy&b=industry:climate-sustainability" \
-H "X-API-Key: $APIS_IO_KEY"
See the Understanding plan
Connect the MCP server →
More comparisons
Stripe vs Adyen
81.1 vs 71.1 · compare_providers
Twilio vs Vonage
91.6 vs 71.3 · compare_providers
OpenAI vs Anthropic
84.5 vs 89 · compare_providers
Plaid vs MX Technologies
84.6 vs 64.9 · compare_providers
GitHub vs GitLab
79 vs 81 · compare_providers
Shopify vs BigCommerce
83 vs 82.5 · compare_providers
HubSpot vs Salesforce
93.2 vs 88.8 · compare_providers
Payments & Money Movement vs Banking & Open Banking
29.3 vs 25.4 average · compare_cohorts
North America vs Europe
17.8 vs 21.4 average · compare_cohorts
Y Combinator vs Andreessen Horowitz
21.8 vs 23.9 average · compare_cohorts
Healthcare vs Insurance
15.7 vs 18.9 average · compare_cohorts
Artificial Intelligence vs Machine Learning
22.9 vs 24.1 average · compare_cohorts
Cybersecurity & Identity vs Developer Tools & DevOps
31.1 vs 33.4 average · compare_cohorts
MCP vs AI Agents
42.6 vs 31.5 average · compare_cohorts
Work with this as data
Every comparison here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.