A/B Testing
Providers using this tag (35)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 4 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 6 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 8 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 10 Limited public surface area
Emerging 4 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 3 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (9)
Ranked by the provider's API Evangelist rating — the Kin Score is scored per provider, not per API, so every API of a provider shares its band. How the rating works →
Exemplar 3 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 2 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 2 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 1 Limited public surface area
Minimal 1 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (4)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “A/B Testing” but do not classify their business under it. Listed unranked and kept out of the count above, because one tagged operation is not a statement about what a company does.
Score breakdown
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 34 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged A/B Testing, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Developer Ergonomics | 45.9 | 23.2 | +22.7 | 34 |
| Contract Quality | 39.8 | 17.6 | +22.2 | 34 |
| Access Clarity | 46.7 | 26.5 | +20.2 | 34 |
| Operational Transparency | 31.6 | 13.7 | +17.9 | 34 |
| Discoverability | 66.6 | 58.1 | +8.5 | 34 |
| Contract Governance | 12.9 | 6.3 | +6.6 | 34 |
A facet is averaged over the members that carry it, not over the whole cohort — the “Scored” column is that count. Averaging an absent facet as zero would score our own coverage gaps as the providers’ posture.
| Artifact | This cohort | Catalog | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MCP server (any) | 47% | 14% | +33 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 44% | 12% | +32 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 24% | 11% | +13 |
| Security | 100% | 98% | +2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 3% | 2% | +1 |
| Governance rules | 32% | 14% | +18 |
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.
- 1 Optimizely 80.8
- 2 Flagsmith 78.5
- 3 Statsig 76.7
- 4 Unbounce 68.5
- 5 Zoho Campaigns 65
- 6 Intelligems 60.6
- 7 Leanplum 60.5
- 8 Uniform 59.3
- 9 Amplitude 57.3
- 10 Leadpages 56.9
- 1 Unbounce 65.6
- 2 Builder.io 64.2
- 3 Optimizely 62.5
- 4 Statsig 57.1
- 5 PostHog 55.7
- 6 Intelligems 55.2
- 7 Amplitude 54
- 8 Leadpages 50.6
- 9 Flagsmith 47.2
- 10 GrowthBook 47
Coverage caveat. 21 of 34 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.Generated from the catalog build of 5 October 2026, across 29093 providers, using the same computation served by the APIs.io cohort API. Briefs are published for rosters of 5 or more scored providers; below that a distribution is not meaningful.
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.