Building Automation
Providers using this tag (27)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Strong 2 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 4 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 9 Limited public surface area
Emerging 6 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 6 Almost no public developer surface
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 →
Strong 1 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 4 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 5 Limited public surface area
Emerging 2 Early or largely undocumented
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 |
|---|---|
| Building Automation (HVAC, BACnet, KNX, smart buildings) | 34% |
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 27 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Building Automation, 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 | 27.6 | 23.2 | +4.4 | 27 |
| Discoverability | 61 | 58.1 | +2.9 | 27 |
| Contract Governance | 8.9 | 6.3 | +2.6 | 27 |
| Operational Transparency | 16.2 | 13.7 | +2.5 | 27 |
| Contract Quality | 18.4 | 17.6 | +0.8 | 27 |
| Access Clarity | 24.3 | 26.5 | -2.2 | 27 |
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% | 14% | -3 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 7% | 12% | -5 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 30% | 11% | +19 |
| Security | 100% | 98% | +2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 0% | 2% | -2 |
| Governance rules | 7% | 14% | -7 |
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 Aedifion 62.5
- 2 Carrier Global 54.5
- 3 Siemens 53.7
- 4 ButterflyMX 42.8
- 5 Door 40.7
- 6 75F 39.9
- 7 PassiveLogic 36.8
- 8 Verdigris Technologies 36.5
- 9 Delos 33.5
- 10 Hello Therma 32.2
- 1 Aedifion 47.8
- 2 Carrier Global 41.5
- 3 Siemens 38.2
- 4 Door 36.5
- 5 PassiveLogic 35.1
- 6 ButterflyMX 34.7
- 7 Verdigris Technologies 34.4
- 8 Turntide Technologies 32.9
- 9 Hello Therma 32.7
- 10 Delos 30.8
Coverage caveat. 24 of 27 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 5 October 2026, across 29093 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.