Compute
Providers using this tag (87)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 3 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 12 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 29 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 17 Limited public surface area
Emerging 8 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 18 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (62)
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 6 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 14 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 15 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 16 Limited public surface area
Emerging 8 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 3 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (38)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Compute” 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 82 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Compute, 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 | 44.8 | 23.2 | +21.6 | 82 |
| Contract Quality | 35 | 17.2 | +17.8 | 82 |
| Access Clarity | 40.8 | 23.9 | +16.9 | 82 |
| Operational Transparency | 24.2 | 13 | +11.2 | 82 |
| Discoverability | 65.5 | 57.9 | +7.6 | 82 |
| Contract Governance | 10 | 6.5 | +3.5 | 82 |
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) | 21% | 13% | +8 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 21% | 12% | +9 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 11% | 11% | 0 |
| Security | 100% | 98% | +2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 9% | 2% | +7 |
| Governance rules | 29% | 16% | +13 |
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 Oracle Cloud Infrastructure 75.3
- 2 Amazon Lightsail 73.8
- 3 NexGen Cloud 66.5
- 4 Microsoft Azure Functions 64.2
- 5 Paperspace 64.2
- 6 Amazon EC2 Auto Scaling 62.6
- 7 Amazon EC2 62.2
- 8 Microsoft Azure Batch 62.2
- 9 Koyeb 62
- 10 Mithril 60.5
- 1 The San Francisco Compute Company 55.9
- 2 Oracle Cloud Infrastructure 52.1
- 3 Blaxel 52
- 4 Vultr 49.8
- 5 NexGen Cloud 43.3
- 6 Thunder Compute 42.4
- 7 Koyeb 42
- 8 Dedalus Labs 40.5
- 9 Vast.ai 39
- 10 Microsoft Azure Batch 34.9
Coverage caveat. 61 of 82 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 24 October 2026, across 31984 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.