AdTech
Advertising TechnologyAdTech
Providers using this tag (189)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 9 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 13 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 42 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 31 Limited public surface area
Emerging 32 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 58 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 4 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (15)
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
Developing 5 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 5 Limited public surface area
Emerging 2 Early or largely undocumented
Score breakdown
Where this tag sits
189 providers carry this tag directly, and 218 counting the 12 narrower tags below — 29 more to reach.
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Markets provisional
Kin Score markets whose measured providers carry this tag. Share is the fraction of the market's measured providers that carry it — it describes the market, not this tag.
| Market | Share of the market's providers |
|---|---|
| Adtech and Privacy | 76% |
| TAG-Certified Ad Fraud and Brand Safety | 51% |
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 156 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged AdTech, 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 | 37.4 | 24.5 | +12.9 | 156 |
| Operational Transparency | 22.6 | 13.2 | +9.4 | 156 |
| Access Clarity | 37 | 30 | +7 | 156 |
| Discoverability | 65 | 59.1 | +5.9 | 156 |
| Contract Governance | 15 | 9.7 | +5.3 | 156 |
| Contract Quality | 21.1 | 18.6 | +2.5 | 156 |
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) | 27% | 18% | +9 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 27% | 16% | +11 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 26% | 13% | +13 |
| Security | 98% | 99% | -1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 3% | 1% | +2 |
| Governance rules | 34% | 36% | -2 |
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 Didomi 78.8
- 2 Google Ads 73.4
- 3 LiveRamp 72.6
- 4 AppsFlyer 72.1
- 5 MOLOCO 71.5
- 6 Outbrain 71.1
- 7 Taboola 69.5
- 8 Scope3 68.4
- 9 AppLike Group 67.6
- 10 MediaMath 66.2
- 1 Scope3 64.3
- 2 AppLike Group 60.4
- 3 MOLOCO 59
- 4 Permutive 55.5
- 5 VidMob 55.1
- 6 AppsFlyer 54.5
- 7 Truex Media 53.2
- 8 NextRoll 52.2
- 9 VideoAmp 50.9
- 10 ezoic 50.5
Coverage caveat. 129 of 156 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 14 November 2026, across 41591 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.