BIM
Providers using this tag (41)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 2 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 2 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Thin 6 Limited public surface area
Emerging 13 Early or largely undocumented
APIs with this tag (6)
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 4 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 1 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 1 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Score breakdown
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 |
|---|---|
| Construction and AEC | 30% |
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 36 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged BIM, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Access Clarity | 39.1 | 30 | +9.1 | 36 |
| Operational Transparency | 18 | 13.2 | +4.8 | 36 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 28.1 | 24.5 | +3.6 | 36 |
| Contract Quality | 19.2 | 18.6 | +0.6 | 36 |
| Discoverability | 58.6 | 59.1 | -0.5 | 36 |
| Contract Governance | 8.9 | 9.7 | -0.8 | 36 |
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) | 11% | 18% | -7 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 11% | 16% | -5 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 19% | 13% | +6 |
| Security | 97% | 99% | -2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 6% | 1% | +5 |
| Governance rules | 33% | 36% | -3 |
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 Autodesk 72.9
- 2 Autodesk Construction Cloud 69
- 3 Trimble 65.9
- 4 Bentley Systems 63.3
- 5 PlanRadar 53.4
- 6 Finalcad 52.8
- 7 Fieldwire 52.3
- 8 Cintoo 45.6
- 9 Koppla 45.2
- 10 Newforma 41.7
- 1 Autodesk 46.9
- 2 Autodesk Construction Cloud 41.2
- 3 Finalcad 37.1
- 4 Trimble 36
- 5 Newforma 34.1
- 6 Cintoo 33.4
- 7 PlanRadar 27
- 8 Autodesk BIM 360 26.1
- 9 BRICK Schema 25.3
- 10 Bentley Systems 24.3
Coverage caveat. 31 of 36 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 14 November 2026, across 41591 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.