Cloud Computing
Providers using this tag (65)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 6 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 12 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 17 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 10 Limited public surface area
Emerging 5 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 13 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 2 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (5)
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 2 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 1 Limited public surface area
Emerging 1 Early or largely undocumented
Companies reaching this through an API (1)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Cloud Computing” 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
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 54 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Cloud Computing, 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 | 53.4 | 24.5 | +28.9 | 54 |
| Operational Transparency | 33 | 13.2 | +19.8 | 54 |
| Access Clarity | 47.7 | 30 | +17.7 | 54 |
| Contract Quality | 33.8 | 18.6 | +15.2 | 54 |
| Discoverability | 67.9 | 59.1 | +8.8 | 54 |
| Contract Governance | 17.7 | 9.7 | +8 | 54 |
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) | 32% | 18% | +14 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 32% | 16% | +16 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 21% | 13% | +8 |
| Security | 96% | 99% | -3 |
| Arazzo workflows | 16% | 1% | +15 |
| Governance rules | 55% | 36% | +19 |
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 Microsoft Azure 75.7
- 2 Oracle Cloud Infrastructure 75.6
- 3 Amazon HealthOmics 75.2
- 4 Amazon GameLift 73.4
- 5 Amazon EC2 71
- 6 Google Cloud Platform 67.5
- 7 IBM 65.8
- 8 Linode 65.8
- 9 STACKIT 65.3
- 10 Azure Virtual Machines 64.2
- 1 Databricks 58.9
- 2 Microsoft Azure 51.5
- 3 Google Cloud Platform 51.1
- 4 Oracle Cloud Infrastructure 50
- 5 Amazon HealthOmics 46.7
- 6 Amazon EC2 46.3
- 7 NewTqnia | Technology News, AI and Innovation 44.8
- 8 Linode 42.1
- 9 Amazon GameLift 39
- 10 IBM 36.3
Coverage caveat. 33 of 54 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.