Content Management
Providers using this tag (131)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 16 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 21 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 21 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 29 Limited public surface area
Emerging 33 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 11 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (64)
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 16 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 10 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 14 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 10 Limited public surface area
Emerging 13 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 1 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (25)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Content 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
131 providers carry this tag directly, and 135 counting the 1 narrower tag below — 4 more to reach.
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Markets provisional
Kin Score markets whose measured providers carry this tag. Share is the fraction of the market's measured providers that carry it — it describes the market, not this tag.
| Market | Share of the market's providers |
|---|---|
| Content, Documentation and Design Platforms | 47% |
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 130 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Content Management, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contract Quality | 34 | 18.6 | +15.4 | 130 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 39.6 | 24.5 | +15.1 | 130 |
| Access Clarity | 44.8 | 30 | +14.8 | 130 |
| Operational Transparency | 27.8 | 13.2 | +14.6 | 130 |
| Discoverability | 66.9 | 59.1 | +7.8 | 130 |
| Contract Governance | 15 | 9.7 | +5.3 | 130 |
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) | 40% | 18% | +22 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 36% | 16% | +20 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 28% | 13% | +15 |
| Security | 100% | 99% | +1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 5% | 1% | +4 |
| 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 Progress Software 78.6
- 2 Optimizely 78.1
- 3 Confluence 77.7
- 4 Salesforce Marketing Cloud 77.6
- 5 Seismic 76.2
- 6 Veeva 75.2
- 7 dotCMS 74.1
- 8 Contentstack 73.6
- 9 Prismic 72.6
- 10 Acquia 72.4
- 1 Optimizely 62.9
- 2 Acquia 62.7
- 3 Frase 62.1
- 4 Archbee 59.3
- 5 Automattic 57.9
- 6 Box 57.4
- 7 Confluence 56.9
- 8 Contentful 56.5
- 9 Coda Project 55.2
- 10 Eden 54.3
Coverage caveat. 90 of 130 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.