Campaign Management
Providers using this tag (44)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 6 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 14 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 11 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 8 Limited public surface area
Emerging 3 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 2 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (13)
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 4 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 2 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 3 Limited public surface area
Emerging 2 Early or largely undocumented
Companies reaching this through an API (8)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Campaign Management” 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
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 42 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Campaign Management, 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 | 53.5 | 23.2 | +30.3 | 42 |
| Operational Transparency | 43.8 | 13.7 | +30.1 | 42 |
| Access Clarity | 54.8 | 26.5 | +28.3 | 42 |
| Contract Quality | 45.2 | 17.6 | +27.6 | 42 |
| Discoverability | 70.5 | 58.1 | +12.4 | 42 |
| Contract Governance | 15.2 | 6.3 | +8.9 | 42 |
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) | 36% | 12% | +24 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 62% | 11% | +51 |
| Security | 100% | 98% | +2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 5% | 2% | +3 |
| Governance rules | 29% | 14% | +15 |
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 Google Ads 72.9
- 2 Adobe Campaign 72
- 3 MoEngage 69
- 4 Adobe Experience Cloud 68.2
- 5 Google Campaign Manager 66.9
- 6 MediaMath 66.5
- 7 SAP Emarsys 66
- 8 StackAdapt 65.8
- 9 MOLOCO 63.5
- 10 Playable 63.1
- 1 MoEngage 67.8
- 2 Knak 58.8
- 3 MOLOCO 57
- 4 Adobe Experience Cloud 55
- 5 NextRoll 52.2
- 6 MediaMath 48
- 7 StackAdapt 47.7
- 8 Skai (Kenshoo) 47.7
- 9 MadHive 44.1
- 10 Playable 42.6
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.