AML
Anti-Money LaunderingAML
Providers using this tag (81)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 2 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 8 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 26 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 18 Limited public surface area
Emerging 19 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 →
Exemplar 1 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 3 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 14 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 9 Limited public surface area
Emerging 7 Early or largely undocumented
Companies reaching this through an API (8)
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
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 |
|---|---|
| GLEIF LEI Issuers (Legal Entity Identifier infrastructure) | 37% |
| RegTech, AML/KYC and Money Transmission | 35% |
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 80 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 | 40.1 | 23.2 | +16.9 | 80 |
| Contract Quality | 31.1 | 17.2 | +13.9 | 80 |
| Operational Transparency | 26.3 | 13 | +13.3 | 80 |
| Access Clarity | 34 | 23.9 | +10.1 | 80 |
| Discoverability | 67.8 | 57.9 | +9.9 | 80 |
| Contract Governance | 10.4 | 6.5 | +3.9 | 80 |
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% | 13% | +6 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 20% | 12% | +8 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 23% | 11% | +12 |
| Security | 100% | 98% | +2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 5% | 2% | +3 |
| Governance rules | 14% | 16% | -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 iDenfy 67.2
- 3 Solidus Labs 65.6
- 4 ComplyAdvantage 63.2
- 5 Fenergo 62.7
- 6 Didit 62.6
- 7 Unico 57.1
- 8 Topograph 56.8
- 9 Trulioo 55.6
- 10 CipherOwl 54.9
- 1 Didit 60.3
- 2 Topograph 57.3
- 3 Lukka 56
- 4 Trulioo 51.9
- 5 ComplyAdvantage 49.1
- 6 Authologic 48.4
- 7 Resistant AI 47.1
- 8 Landmark Information Group 47
- 9 Strise 45.5
- 10 Fenergo 44
Coverage caveat. 74 of 80 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.