Business Intelligence
BIBusiness Intelligence
Providers using this tag (173)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 6 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 15 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 39 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 40 Limited public surface area
Emerging 31 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 37 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 5 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (38)
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 13 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 6 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 11 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 5 Limited public surface area
Emerging 3 Early or largely undocumented
Companies reaching this through an API (22)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Business Intelligence” 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
173 providers carry this tag directly, and 176 counting the 1 narrower tag below — 3 more to reach.
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 153 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Business Intelligence, 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 | 38.4 | 23.2 | +15.2 | 153 |
| Access Clarity | 40.3 | 26.5 | +13.8 | 153 |
| Operational Transparency | 23 | 13.7 | +9.3 | 153 |
| Contract Quality | 23 | 17.6 | +5.4 | 153 |
| Discoverability | 61.9 | 58.1 | +3.8 | 153 |
| Contract Governance | 9.1 | 6.3 | +2.8 | 153 |
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) | 36% | 14% | +22 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 35% | 12% | +23 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 20% | 11% | +9 |
| Security | 96% | 98% | -2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 3% | 2% | +1 |
| Governance rules | 16% | 14% | +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 Power Query 75.8
- 2 Qlik Sense 72
- 3 Sigma Computing 71.9
- 4 TextQL 69.5
- 5 Adobe Analytics 69
- 6 Power BI 67.5
- 7 Improvado 65.4
- 8 Visier 64.4
- 9 AI for Database 60.2
- 10 Fundz 60.2
- 1 Adobe Analytics 64
- 2 TextQL 63.6
- 3 Mavenlink 61.3
- 4 Sigma Computing 59.5
- 5 Datarails 56.7
- 6 Equals 56.1
- 7 Hex 53.3
- 8 Improvado 53.2
- 9 Funnel 48.7
- 10 Crystal Reports 48.6
Coverage caveat. 129 of 153 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.