Application Security
Providers using this tag (87)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Strong 8 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 13 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 18 Limited public surface area
Emerging 21 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 22 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 3 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (12)
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 2 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 1 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 3 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 3 Limited public surface area
Emerging 3 Early or largely undocumented
Companies reaching this through an API (3)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Application Security” 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 77 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Application Security, 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 | 32.6 | 23.2 | +9.4 | 77 |
| Operational Transparency | 21.6 | 13.7 | +7.9 | 77 |
| Access Clarity | 34.2 | 26.5 | +7.7 | 77 |
| Discoverability | 62.4 | 58.1 | +4.3 | 77 |
| Contract Governance | 8.7 | 6.3 | +2.4 | 77 |
| Contract Quality | 19.7 | 17.6 | +2.1 | 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) | 26% | 14% | +12 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 24% | 12% | +12 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 8% | 11% | -3 |
| Security | 96% | 98% | -2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 3% | 2% | +1 |
| Governance rules | 18% | 14% | +4 |
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 Dynatrace 86.3
- 2 Snyk 80.6
- 3 Mend 63.4
- 4 OpenText Cybersecurity 60.3
- 5 Kondukto 59
- 6 Fortify 58.9
- 7 Veracode 58.8
- 8 Checkmarx 58.5
- 9 Contrast Security 58.5
- 10 Xbow 57.5
- 1 Contrast Security 56.3
- 2 Dynatrace 48.7
- 3 DataDome 44.6
- 4 Snyk 43.7
- 5 OpenText Cybersecurity 36.7
- 6 Checkmarx 35.6
- 7 Qwiet Ai 33.7
- 8 Cequence Security 33.6
- 9 Rapid7 31.2
- 10 Tidelift 30.8
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.