AML
Anti-Money LaunderingAML
Providers using this tag (78)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 1 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 12 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 27 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 17 Limited public surface area
Emerging 13 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 8 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (34)
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 19 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 5 Limited public surface area
Emerging 7 Early or largely undocumented
Companies reaching this through an API (12)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “AML” 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
Where this tag sits
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 77 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged AML, 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 | 40.4 | 23.2 | +17.2 | 77 |
| Contract Quality | 32.5 | 17.6 | +14.9 | 77 |
| Operational Transparency | 28 | 13.7 | +14.3 | 77 |
| Access Clarity | 39.1 | 26.5 | +12.6 | 77 |
| Discoverability | 68.1 | 58.1 | +10 | 77 |
| Contract Governance | 9.3 | 6.3 | +3 | 77 |
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) | 19% | 14% | +5 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 21% | 12% | +9 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 23% | 11% | +12 |
| Security | 100% | 98% | +2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 5% | 2% | +3 |
| Governance rules | 12% | 14% | -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 OpenSanctions 67.9
- 2 Solidus Labs 65.5
- 3 ComplyAdvantage 64.7
- 4 iDenfy 62.7
- 5 Fenergo 62.3
- 6 Didit 62
- 7 Signzy 58.1
- 8 Unico 57.7
- 9 Topograph 56.8
- 10 MetaMap 55
- 1 Didit 59.8
- 2 Topograph 56.7
- 3 Lukka 55
- 4 Trulioo 53.9
- 5 Authologic 49
- 6 ComplyAdvantage 47.3
- 7 Fenergo 46.5
- 8 Landmark Information Group 45.9
- 9 Resistant AI 45.9
- 10 Strise 45.5
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.