compare_cohorts
Techstars vs 500 Global: two accelerators, one clear gap
Techstars companies outscore 500 Global's by 4.1 points, and the coverage check says the gap is the portfolios, not us.
Techstars
500 Global
Each sun is drawn from the cohort's averages: six facet rings, the mean Kin Score and mean agent readiness.
depth_confounded: false), so this gap can be read as a difference between the markets.Two of the largest accelerator portfolios in the catalog: 819 scored Techstars companies and 1,691 from 500 Global. Techstars averages 18.9 against 14.8, with a median of 12.7 against 10.2. Both have the same 91.6 ceiling, but 500 Global has more exemplars in absolute terms (14 against 6) because it is twice the size.
depth_confounded is false. Techstars scores higher without being the cohort we covered more deeply, since both sit at a median of five artifact directories. That makes this one of the cleaner comparisons on the page. Techstars leads on every facet, most clearly on access clarity (26.2 against 20.2), contract quality (10.6 against 7.7) and operational transparency (8.1 against 5.8). It also leads on first-party MCP (9% against 7%) and OAuth scopes (9% against 7%).
Both portfolios are thinly covered: 1,658 of 500 Global’s scored companies and 793 of Techstars’ have less than half their catalog points satisfied. Accelerator portfolios are young companies, and many have no public API yet.
The distributions
| Techstars | 500 Global | Delta | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kin Score, mean | 18.9 | 14.8 | +4.1 |
| Kin Score, median | 12.7 | 10.2 | +2.5 |
| Kin Score, highest | 91.6 | 91.6 | |
| Kin Score, std dev | 16 | 14.9 | |
| Agent readiness, mean | 8.2 | 6.2 | +2 |
| Agent readiness, highest | 62.7 | 66.5 |
Delta is Techstars minus 500 Global, as the tool returns it.
Where the providers sit
Techstars
500 Global
Facet averages
| Facet | Techstars | 500 Global | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discoverability | 55.7 | 52.2 | +3.5 |
| Contract Quality | 10.6 | 7.7 | +2.9 |
| Contract Governance | 3.9 | 2.5 | +1.4 |
| Operational Transparency | 8.1 | 5.8 | +2.3 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 18.9 | 14.2 | +4.7 |
| Access Clarity | 26.2 | 20.2 | +6 |
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 | Techstars | 500 Global | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| First-party MCP server | 9% | 7% | +2 |
| Any MCP artifact (incl. derived) | 12% | 9% | +3 |
| OAuth scopes | 9% | 7% | +2 |
| Spectral rules | 4% | 2% | +2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 2% | 1% | +1 |
| Agent skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| Security artifact | 100% | 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.
| Techstars | 500 Global | |
|---|---|---|
| Declared members | 886 | 2003 |
| Scored (in the averages) | 819 (93%) | 1691 (85%) |
| Thinly covered | 793 | 1658 |
| Median artifact directories | 5 | 5 |
| Mean catalog gap (points we could add) | 83 | 84.7 |
The full compare_cohorts response
{"a":{"kind":"vc","slug":"techstars","name":"Techstars","members":881,"stats":{"kind":"vc","slug":"techstars","name":"Techstars","tier":"report","coverage":{"declared_members":886,"resolved_members":881,"scored_members":819,"agent_scored_members":819,"scored_share_pct":93,"unexamined_members":62,"enrichment_depth":{"mean_catalog_gap":83,"median_artifact_dirs":5,"n":819,"thinly_covered":793,"thinly_covered_of":819,"thin_coverage_note":"793 of 819 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":12.7,"min":0,"max":91.6,"stdev":16},"agent_readiness":{"mean":8.2,"median":0,"min":0,"max":62.7,"stdev":13.2},"band_distribution":{"exemplar":6,"strong":20,"developing":90,"thin":96,"emerging":273,"minimal":334},"facet_averages":{"discoverability":{"mean":55.7,"n":819},"contract_quality":{"mean":10.6,"n":819},"contract_governance":{"mean":3.9,"n":819},"operational_transparency":{"mean":8.1,"n":819},"developer_ergonomics":{"mean":18.9,"n":819},"access_clarity":{"mean":26.2,"n":819}},"adoption":{"mcp_pct":12,"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":9,"security_pct":100,"arazzo_pct":2,"rules_pct":4}}},"b":{"kind":"vc","slug":"500-global","name":"500 Global","members":1992,"stats":{"kind":"vc","slug":"500-global","name":"500 Global","tier":"report","coverage":{"declared_members":2003,"resolved_members":1992,"scored_members":1691,"agent_scored_members":1691,"scored_share_pct":85,"unexamined_members":300,"enrichment_depth":{"mean_catalog_gap":84.7,"median_artifact_dirs":5,"n":1691,"thinly_covered":1658,"thinly_covered_of":1691,"thin_coverage_note":"1658 of 1691 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":14.8,"median":10.2,"min":0,"max":91.6,"stdev":14.9},"agent_readiness":{"mean":6.2,"median":0,"min":0,"max":66.5,"stdev":12.2},"band_distribution":{"exemplar":14,"strong":30,"developing":114,"thin":155,"emerging":452,"minimal":926},"facet_averages":{"discoverability":{"mean":52.2,"n":1691},"contract_quality":{"mean":7.7,"n":1691},"contract_governance":{"mean":2.5,"n":1691},"operational_transparency":{"mean":5.8,"n":1691},"developer_ergonomics":{"mean":14.2,"n":1691},"access_clarity":{"mean":20.2,"n":1691}},"adoption":{"mcp_pct":9,"mcp_first_party_pct":7,"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":2}}},"comparable":true,"delta":{"kin_score_mean":4.1,"kin_score_median":2.5,"agent_readiness_mean":2,"facets":{"discoverability":3.5,"contract_quality":2.9,"contract_governance":1.4,"operational_transparency":2.3,"developer_ergonomics":4.7,"access_clarity":6},"adoption":{"mcp_pct":3,"mcp_first_party_pct":2,"mcp_note":null,"skills_pct":0,"scopes_pct":2,"security_pct":1,"arazzo_pct":1,"rules_pct":2},"enrichment_depth":{"mean_catalog_gap":-1.7,"median_artifact_dirs":0}},"depth_confounded":false}
Result read 2026-10-27. Techstars and 500 Global 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": "vc:techstars", "b": "vc:500-global"}}
Over the REST API:
curl "https://apis.io/api/v1/cohorts/compare?a=vc:techstars&b=vc:500-global" \
-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.