Billing
Providers using this tag (155)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 6 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 10 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 43 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 44 Limited public surface area
Emerging 38 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 13 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 1 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (309)
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 39 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 56 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 113 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 58 Limited public surface area
Emerging 37 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 6 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (237)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Billing” 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.
Show all 237 companies ↓
Score breakdown
Where this tag sits
155 providers carry this tag directly, and 157 counting the 1 narrower tag below — 2 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 |
|---|---|
| Billing, Subscriptions and Monetization | 72% |
| Korea MyData (licensed MyData operators, authentication bodies and information providers) | 25% |
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 154 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Billing, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contract Quality | 33.7 | 17.2 | +16.5 | 154 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 37.6 | 23.2 | +14.4 | 154 |
| Access Clarity | 33.4 | 23.9 | +9.5 | 154 |
| Operational Transparency | 21.2 | 13 | +8.2 | 154 |
| Discoverability | 65 | 57.9 | +7.1 | 154 |
| Contract Governance | 9.8 | 6.5 | +3.3 | 154 |
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) | 28% | 13% | +15 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 28% | 12% | +16 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 20% | 11% | +9 |
| Security | 99% | 98% | +1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 3% | 2% | +1 |
| Governance rules | 22% | 16% | +6 |
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 Kinde 82.4
- 2 drchrono 77
- 3 Drippay 72.3
- 4 Conga 68.6
- 5 Azure Cost Management 67.5
- 6 eClinicalWorks 67.5
- 7 IBM 66.4
- 8 Healthie 66.1
- 9 Guidewire 63.6
- 10 Paid 63.1
Coverage caveat. 132 of 154 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.