AdTech
Advertising TechnologyAdTech
Providers using this tag (180)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 6 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 12 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 37 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 34 Limited public surface area
Emerging 29 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 →
Strong 3 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 6 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 4 Limited public surface area
Emerging 2 Early or largely undocumented
Score breakdown
Where this tag sits
180 providers carry this tag directly, and 204 counting the 12 narrower tags below — 24 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 149 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 | 36 | 23.2 | +12.8 | 149 |
| Operational Transparency | 23.2 | 13 | +10.2 | 149 |
| Access Clarity | 32.1 | 23.9 | +8.2 | 149 |
| Discoverability | 64.2 | 57.9 | +6.3 | 149 |
| Contract Governance | 11.4 | 6.5 | +4.9 | 149 |
| Contract Quality | 20.6 | 17.2 | +3.4 | 149 |
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) | 26% | 13% | +13 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 26% | 12% | +14 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 25% | 11% | +14 |
| Security | 97% | 98% | -1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 3% | 2% | +1 |
| Governance rules | 7% | 16% | -9 |
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 80
- 2 Outbrain 74.9
- 3 Google Ads 71.9
- 4 Taboola 71
- 5 AppsFlyer 69.2
- 6 Scope3 66.8
- 7 StackAdapt 64.3
- 8 MOLOCO 64.1
- 9 RB2B 60.8
- 10 Skai (Kenshoo) 60.3
- 1 Scope3 64.3
- 2 AppLike Group 60.4
- 3 VidMob 55.1
- 4 MOLOCO 54.9
- 5 Truex Media 53.2
- 6 NextRoll 52.2
- 7 Permutive 51.3
- 8 VideoAmp 50.9
- 9 ezoic 50.5
- 10 StackAdapt 47.7
Coverage caveat. 132 of 149 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 24 October 2026, across 31984 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.