Compare / Markets / Healthcare vs Insurance

compare_cohorts

Healthcare vs Insurance: two regulated markets, and healthcare trails

Insurance outscores healthcare on score, agent readiness and contract quality. Healthcare has the lowest agent readiness in this showcase.

Healthcare

15.7 average
emerging on average
Agent readiness 5.4 · agent-aware
2107 scored providers · industry
VS

Insurance

18.9 average
emerging on average
Agent readiness 8.4 · agent-aware
681 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 coverageInsurance scores 3.2 points higher than Healthcare AND is the better-enriched cohort: 2.3 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.

Both markets are regulated and data-heavy, and both are under pressure to open up through FHIR, interoperability rules and embedded insurance. The catalog says insurance is further along. Its 681 scored providers average 18.9 against healthcare’s 15.7, across 2,107 scored providers. Insurance also leads on contract quality, 10.7 against 6.9.

Healthcare’s agent readiness averages 5.4, the lowest of any cohort on this page. Only 4% of healthcare providers publish a first-party MCP server. Healthcare is a large market for API products, and very little of it is ready for an agent to call.

Insurance scores higher and is also slightly better enriched, so depth_confounded is true. Healthcare’s thin-coverage count is the larger story: 2,031 of 2,107 scored members have less than half their catalog-attributable points satisfied. That gap is ours to close as much as theirs.

The distributions

HealthcareInsuranceDelta
Kin Score, mean15.718.9-3.2
Kin Score, median1113.8-2.8
Kin Score, highest79.466.2
Kin Score, std dev13.714.3
Agent readiness, mean5.48.4-3
Agent readiness, highest66.356.9

Delta is Healthcare minus Insurance, as the tool returns it.

Where the providers sit

Healthcare

exemplar 16strong 42developing 121thin 136emerging 767minimal 1025

Insurance

exemplar 0strong 16developing 67thin 80emerging 262minimal 256

Facet averages

FacetHealthcareInsuranceDelta
Discoverability 54.5 57.5 -3
Contract Quality 6.9 10.7 -3.8
Contract Governance 5 6.3 -1.3
Operational Transparency 6.2 8.1 -1.9
Developer Ergonomics 12.8 18.7 -5.9
Access Clarity 21.7 24 -2.3

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.

ArtifactHealthcareInsuranceDelta
First-party MCP server4%6%-2
Any MCP artifact (incl. derived)5%7%-2
OAuth scopes7%12%-5
Spectral rules5%8%-3
Arazzo workflows1%1%0
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.

HealthcareInsurance
Declared members2353710
Scored (in the averages)2107 (90%)681 (96%)
Thinly covered2031644
Median artifact directories67
Mean catalog gap (points we could add)83.981.6
The full compare_cohorts response
{"a":{"kind":"industry","slug":"healthcare","name":"Healthcare","members":2353,"stats":{"kind":"industry","slug":"healthcare","name":"Healthcare","tier":"report","coverage":{"declared_members":2353,"resolved_members":2353,"scored_members":2107,"agent_scored_members":2107,"scored_share_pct":90,"unexamined_members":231,"enrichment_depth":{"mean_catalog_gap":83.9,"median_artifact_dirs":6,"n":2107,"thinly_covered":2031,"thinly_covered_of":2107,"thin_coverage_note":"2031 of 2107 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":15.7,"median":11,"min":0,"max":79.4,"stdev":13.7},"agent_readiness":{"mean":5.4,"median":0,"min":0,"max":66.3,"stdev":11.4},"band_distribution":{"exemplar":16,"strong":42,"developing":121,"thin":136,"emerging":767,"minimal":1025},"facet_averages":{"discoverability":{"mean":54.5,"n":2107},"contract_quality":{"mean":6.9,"n":2107},"contract_governance":{"mean":5,"n":2107},"operational_transparency":{"mean":6.2,"n":2107},"developer_ergonomics":{"mean":12.8,"n":2107},"access_clarity":{"mean":21.7,"n":2107}},"adoption":{"mcp_pct":5,"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":5}}},"b":{"kind":"industry","slug":"insurance","name":"Insurance","members":710,"stats":{"kind":"industry","slug":"insurance","name":"Insurance","tier":"report","coverage":{"declared_members":710,"resolved_members":710,"scored_members":681,"agent_scored_members":681,"scored_share_pct":96,"unexamined_members":25,"enrichment_depth":{"mean_catalog_gap":81.6,"median_artifact_dirs":7,"n":681,"thinly_covered":644,"thinly_covered_of":681,"thin_coverage_note":"644 of 681 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":18.9,"median":13.8,"min":0,"max":66.2,"stdev":14.3},"agent_readiness":{"mean":8.4,"median":0,"min":0,"max":56.9,"stdev":13.1},"band_distribution":{"strong":16,"developing":67,"thin":80,"emerging":262,"minimal":256},"facet_averages":{"discoverability":{"mean":57.5,"n":681},"contract_quality":{"mean":10.7,"n":681},"contract_governance":{"mean":6.3,"n":681},"operational_transparency":{"mean":8.1,"n":681},"developer_ergonomics":{"mean":18.7,"n":681},"access_clarity":{"mean":24,"n":681}},"adoption":{"mcp_pct":7,"mcp_first_party_pct":6,"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":12,"security_pct":99,"arazzo_pct":1,"rules_pct":8}}},"comparable":true,"delta":{"kin_score_mean":-3.2,"kin_score_median":-2.8,"agent_readiness_mean":-3,"facets":{"discoverability":-3,"contract_quality":-3.8,"contract_governance":-1.3,"operational_transparency":-1.9,"developer_ergonomics":-5.9,"access_clarity":-2.3},"adoption":{"mcp_pct":-2,"mcp_first_party_pct":-2,"mcp_note":null,"skills_pct":0,"scopes_pct":-5,"security_pct":0,"arazzo_pct":0,"rules_pct":-3},"enrichment_depth":{"mean_catalog_gap":2.3,"median_artifact_dirs":-1}},"depth_confounded":true,"depth_note":"Insurance scores 3.2 points higher than Healthcare AND is the better-enriched cohort: 2.3 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. Healthcare and Insurance 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:healthcare", "b": "industry:insurance"}}
Over the REST API:
curl "https://apis.io/api/v1/cohorts/compare?a=industry:healthcare&b=industry:insurance" \
  -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.