Compare / Markets / Logistics vs Supply Chain & Procurement

compare_cohorts

Logistics vs Supply Chain: a dead heat, and a clean one

Logistics and supply chain score within 0.2 points of each other, and this is a comparison the coverage check allows.

Logistics

20.9 average
emerging on average
Agent readiness 11.7 · agent-aware
678 scored providers · industry
VS

Supply Chain & Procurement

20.7 average
emerging on average
Agent readiness 11 · agent-aware
1308 scored providers · industry

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

A clean comparisonThe higher-scoring cohort is not the one we enriched more deeply (depth_confounded: false), so this gap can be read as a difference between the markets.

This is the closest comparison on the page. Logistics averages 20.9 across 678 scored providers and supply chain and procurement averages 20.7 across 1,308. The medians are 14.5 and 14.7, and both cohorts share the same 94.0 ceiling. Agent readiness is 11.7 against 11.0.

depth_confounded is false. Both cohorts sit at a median of eight artifact directories and the same 78.8-point catalog gap, so this near-tie reflects the markets, not our coverage. The small differences are real but slight. Logistics leads on contract quality (18.6 against 16.3) and developer ergonomics (21.3 against 20.2). Supply chain leads on access clarity (22.4 against 20.5) and OAuth scopes (10% against 8%). It also has more strong and exemplar providers in absolute terms, 50 against 23, because it is nearly twice the size.

Both have the same first-party MCP rate, 8%. If you are choosing between a carrier API and a procurement API, the market label tells you nothing. Compare the providers.

The distributions

LogisticsSupply Chain & ProcurementDelta
Kin Score, mean20.920.7+0.2
Kin Score, median14.514.7-0.2
Kin Score, highest9494
Kin Score, std dev16.416.1
Agent readiness, mean11.711+0.7
Agent readiness, highest60.465.5

Delta is Logistics minus Supply Chain & Procurement, as the tool returns it.

Where the providers sit

Logistics

exemplar 6strong 17developing 88thin 112emerging 195minimal 260

Supply Chain & Procurement

exemplar 11strong 39developing 159thin 199emerging 419minimal 481

Facet averages

FacetLogisticsSupply Chain & ProcurementDelta
Discoverability 59 58.6 +0.4
Contract Quality 18.6 16.3 +2.3
Contract Governance 5.1 5.7 -0.6
Operational Transparency 10 10.4 -0.4
Developer Ergonomics 21.3 20.2 +1.1
Access Clarity 20.5 22.4 -1.9

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.

ArtifactLogisticsSupply Chain & ProcurementDelta
First-party MCP server8%8%0
Any MCP artifact (incl. derived)9%9%0
OAuth scopes8%10%-2
Spectral rules12%12%0
Arazzo workflows2%1%+1
Agent skills0%0%0
Security artifact98%99%-1

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.

LogisticsSupply Chain & Procurement
Declared members7281396
Scored (in the averages)678 (93%)1308 (94%)
Thinly covered6261197
Median artifact directories88
Mean catalog gap (points we could add)78.878.8
The full compare_cohorts response
{"a":{"kind":"industry","slug":"logistics","name":"Logistics","members":728,"stats":{"kind":"industry","slug":"logistics","name":"Logistics","tier":"report","coverage":{"declared_members":728,"resolved_members":728,"scored_members":678,"agent_scored_members":678,"scored_share_pct":93,"unexamined_members":47,"enrichment_depth":{"mean_catalog_gap":78.8,"median_artifact_dirs":8,"n":678,"thinly_covered":626,"thinly_covered_of":678,"thin_coverage_note":"626 of 678 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":20.9,"median":14.5,"min":0,"max":94,"stdev":16.4},"agent_readiness":{"mean":11.7,"median":1,"min":0,"max":60.4,"stdev":14.6},"band_distribution":{"exemplar":6,"strong":17,"developing":88,"thin":112,"emerging":195,"minimal":260},"facet_averages":{"discoverability":{"mean":59,"n":678},"contract_quality":{"mean":18.6,"n":678},"contract_governance":{"mean":5.1,"n":678},"operational_transparency":{"mean":10,"n":678},"developer_ergonomics":{"mean":21.3,"n":678},"access_clarity":{"mean":20.5,"n":678}},"adoption":{"mcp_pct":9,"mcp_first_party_pct":8,"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":98,"arazzo_pct":2,"rules_pct":12}}},"b":{"kind":"industry","slug":"supply-chain","name":"Supply Chain & Procurement","members":1396,"stats":{"kind":"industry","slug":"supply-chain","name":"Supply Chain & Procurement","tier":"report","coverage":{"declared_members":1396,"resolved_members":1396,"scored_members":1308,"agent_scored_members":1308,"scored_share_pct":94,"unexamined_members":83,"enrichment_depth":{"mean_catalog_gap":78.8,"median_artifact_dirs":8,"n":1308,"thinly_covered":1197,"thinly_covered_of":1308,"thin_coverage_note":"1197 of 1308 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":20.7,"median":14.7,"min":0,"max":94,"stdev":16.1},"agent_readiness":{"mean":11,"median":0.6,"min":0,"max":65.5,"stdev":14.7},"band_distribution":{"exemplar":11,"strong":39,"developing":159,"thin":199,"emerging":419,"minimal":481},"facet_averages":{"discoverability":{"mean":58.6,"n":1308},"contract_quality":{"mean":16.3,"n":1308},"contract_governance":{"mean":5.7,"n":1308},"operational_transparency":{"mean":10.4,"n":1308},"developer_ergonomics":{"mean":20.2,"n":1308},"access_clarity":{"mean":22.4,"n":1308}},"adoption":{"mcp_pct":9,"mcp_first_party_pct":8,"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":10,"security_pct":99,"arazzo_pct":1,"rules_pct":12}}},"comparable":true,"delta":{"kin_score_mean":0.2,"kin_score_median":-0.2,"agent_readiness_mean":0.7,"facets":{"discoverability":0.4,"contract_quality":2.3,"contract_governance":-0.6,"operational_transparency":-0.4,"developer_ergonomics":1.1,"access_clarity":-1.9},"adoption":{"mcp_pct":0,"mcp_first_party_pct":0,"mcp_note":null,"skills_pct":0,"scopes_pct":-2,"security_pct":-1,"arazzo_pct":1,"rules_pct":0},"enrichment_depth":{"mean_catalog_gap":0,"median_artifact_dirs":0}},"depth_confounded":false}

Result read 2026-10-27. Logistics and Supply Chain & Procurement 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:logistics", "b": "industry:supply-chain"}}
Over the REST API:
curl "https://apis.io/api/v1/cohorts/compare?a=industry:logistics&b=industry:supply-chain" \
  -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.