Compare / Markets / United Kingdom & Ireland vs Greater China

compare_cohorts

UK & Ireland vs Greater China: the widest regional gap in the catalog

UK and Irish providers score twice as high as Greater China on average. Our own coverage of Chinese providers is part of the reason.

United Kingdom & Ireland

22.8 average
emerging on average
Agent readiness 12.4 · agent-aware
573 scored providers · region
VS

Greater China

11 average
emerging on average
Agent readiness 4.2 · human-only
483 scored providers · region

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 coverageUnited Kingdom & Ireland scores 11.8 points higher than Greater China AND is the better-enriched cohort: 4.9 points less catalog_gap and 4 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 573 scored providers in the UK and Ireland average 22.8. The 483 in Greater China average 11.0, with a median of 5.2. Greater China has no exemplars and five strong providers, and its ceiling is 58.3. Access clarity shows the widest single gap: 25.9 against 9.8.

Read this comparison with the warning first. depth_confounded is true, and by a wide margin: 4.9 points less catalog gap on the UK side and four more artifact directories on the median member. Many Chinese providers document in Chinese on platforms our crawl reaches less well, and 467 of 483 are thinly covered. A large part of this 11.8-point delta is our coverage, not the market.

That makes this a coverage map as much as a market comparison. It shows where the catalog needs work, and providers in Greater China can close the gap themselves by claiming their listing.

The distributions

United Kingdom & IrelandGreater ChinaDelta
Kin Score, mean22.811+11.8
Kin Score, median18.55.2+13.3
Kin Score, highest74.858.3
Kin Score, std dev16.211.9
Agent readiness, mean12.44.2+8.2
Agent readiness, highest65.444.1

Delta is United Kingdom & Ireland minus Greater China, as the tool returns it.

Where the providers sit

United Kingdom & Ireland

exemplar 5strong 15developing 82thin 115emerging 174minimal 182

Greater China

exemplar 0strong 5developing 21thin 33emerging 81minimal 343

Facet averages

FacetUnited Kingdom & IrelandGreater ChinaDelta
Discoverability 59.2 53.3 +5.9
Contract Quality 16.1 5.3 +10.8
Contract Governance 6.5 2 +4.5
Operational Transparency 11.8 4.4 +7.4
Developer Ergonomics 23.5 11.5 +12
Access Clarity 25.9 9.8 +16.1

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.

ArtifactUnited Kingdom & IrelandGreater ChinaDelta
First-party MCP server7%3%+4
Any MCP artifact (incl. derived)7%4%+3
OAuth scopes18%5%+13
Spectral rules7%3%+4
Arazzo workflows2%0%+2
Agent skills0%0%0
Security artifact100%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.

United Kingdom & IrelandGreater China
Declared members609593
Scored (in the averages)573 (94%)483 (81%)
Thinly covered542467
Median artifact directories95
Mean catalog gap (points we could add)79.484.3
The full compare_cohorts response
{"a":{"kind":"region","slug":"united-kingdom-ireland","name":"United Kingdom & Ireland","members":609,"stats":{"kind":"region","slug":"united-kingdom-ireland","name":"United Kingdom & Ireland","tier":"report","coverage":{"declared_members":609,"resolved_members":609,"scored_members":573,"agent_scored_members":573,"scored_share_pct":94,"unexamined_members":36,"enrichment_depth":{"mean_catalog_gap":79.4,"median_artifact_dirs":9,"n":573,"thinly_covered":542,"thinly_covered_of":573,"thin_coverage_note":"542 of 573 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":22.8,"median":18.5,"min":0,"max":74.8,"stdev":16.2},"agent_readiness":{"mean":12.4,"median":2.5,"min":0,"max":65.4,"stdev":15.6},"band_distribution":{"exemplar":5,"strong":15,"developing":82,"thin":115,"emerging":174,"minimal":182},"facet_averages":{"discoverability":{"mean":59.2,"n":573},"contract_quality":{"mean":16.1,"n":573},"contract_governance":{"mean":6.5,"n":573},"operational_transparency":{"mean":11.8,"n":573},"developer_ergonomics":{"mean":23.5,"n":573},"access_clarity":{"mean":25.9,"n":573}},"adoption":{"mcp_pct":7,"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":18,"security_pct":100,"arazzo_pct":2,"rules_pct":7}}},"b":{"kind":"region","slug":"greater-china","name":"Greater China","members":593,"stats":{"kind":"region","slug":"greater-china","name":"Greater China","tier":"report","coverage":{"declared_members":593,"resolved_members":593,"scored_members":483,"agent_scored_members":483,"scored_share_pct":81,"unexamined_members":109,"enrichment_depth":{"mean_catalog_gap":84.3,"median_artifact_dirs":5,"n":483,"thinly_covered":467,"thinly_covered_of":483,"thin_coverage_note":"467 of 483 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":11,"median":5.2,"min":0,"max":58.3,"stdev":11.9},"agent_readiness":{"mean":4.2,"median":0,"min":0,"max":44.1,"stdev":9.3},"band_distribution":{"strong":5,"developing":21,"thin":33,"emerging":81,"minimal":343},"facet_averages":{"discoverability":{"mean":53.3,"n":483},"contract_quality":{"mean":5.3,"n":483},"contract_governance":{"mean":2,"n":483},"operational_transparency":{"mean":4.4,"n":483},"developer_ergonomics":{"mean":11.5,"n":483},"access_clarity":{"mean":9.8,"n":483}},"adoption":{"mcp_pct":4,"mcp_first_party_pct":3,"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":5,"security_pct":99,"arazzo_pct":0,"rules_pct":3}}},"comparable":true,"delta":{"kin_score_mean":11.8,"kin_score_median":13.3,"agent_readiness_mean":8.2,"facets":{"discoverability":5.9,"contract_quality":10.8,"contract_governance":4.5,"operational_transparency":7.4,"developer_ergonomics":12,"access_clarity":16.1},"adoption":{"mcp_pct":3,"mcp_first_party_pct":4,"mcp_note":null,"skills_pct":0,"scopes_pct":13,"security_pct":1,"arazzo_pct":2,"rules_pct":4},"enrichment_depth":{"mean_catalog_gap":-4.9,"median_artifact_dirs":4}},"depth_confounded":true,"depth_note":"United Kingdom & Ireland scores 11.8 points higher than Greater China AND is the better-enriched cohort: 4.9 points less catalog_gap and 4 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. United Kingdom & Ireland and Greater China 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": "region:united-kingdom-ireland", "b": "region:greater-china"}}
Over the REST API:
curl "https://apis.io/api/v1/cohorts/compare?a=region:united-kingdom-ireland&b=region:greater-china" \
  -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.