Competitive Intelligence
Providers using this tag (33)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 2 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 6 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 7 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 7 Limited public surface area
Emerging 5 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 6 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (9)
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 →
Developing 4 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 2 Limited public surface area
Emerging 3 Early or largely undocumented
Score breakdown
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 33 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Competitive Intelligence, 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 | 50.3 | 26.5 | +23.8 | 33 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 33.3 | 23.2 | +10.1 | 33 |
| Contract Quality | 26 | 17.6 | +8.4 | 33 |
| Discoverability | 65.6 | 58.1 | +7.5 | 33 |
| Operational Transparency | 19.5 | 13.7 | +5.8 | 33 |
| Contract Governance | 11.9 | 6.3 | +5.6 | 33 |
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) | 45% | 14% | +31 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 48% | 12% | +36 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 30% | 11% | +19 |
| Security | 100% | 98% | +2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 0% | 2% | -2 |
| Governance rules | 9% | 14% | -5 |
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 G2 69.1
- 2 SimilarWeb 68.7
- 3 Semrush 66.4
- 4 Mention 61.9
- 5 Reputation 61.8
- 6 SpyFu 55.8
- 7 GEOCitation 55.7
- 8 Pomo 55.7
- 9 CrawlGraph 52.7
- 10 Clozd 51.1
- 1 Clozd 59.5
- 2 G2 57.7
- 3 SimilarWeb 50
- 4 Salesgraph 43.8
- 5 Adsmom 39.5
- 6 Pomo 39.3
- 7 AdMakeAI 38.1
- 8 GEOCitation 37.2
- 9 CrawlGraph 36.3
- 10 SpyFu 35.1
Coverage caveat. 24 of 33 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.