CRM
Customer Relationship ManagementCRM
Providers using this tag (469)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 44 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 72 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 83 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 98 Limited public surface area
Emerging 110 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 61 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 1 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (201)
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 76 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 24 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 27 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 40 Limited public surface area
Emerging 19 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 15 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (58)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “CRM” 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
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.
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 426 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged CRM, 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 | 49.5 | 30 | +19.5 | 426 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 37.4 | 24.5 | +12.9 | 426 |
| Operational Transparency | 24.9 | 13.2 | +11.7 | 426 |
| Contract Quality | 30 | 18.6 | +11.4 | 426 |
| Discoverability | 65.5 | 59.1 | +6.4 | 426 |
| Contract Governance | 14.9 | 9.7 | +5.2 | 426 |
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) | 31% | 18% | +13 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 31% | 16% | +15 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 32% | 13% | +19 |
| Security | 99% | 99% | 0 |
| Arazzo workflows | 3% | 1% | +2 |
| Governance rules | 52% | 36% | +16 |
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 HubSpot 91.9
- 2 Ada 88
- 3 Salesforce 88
- 4 Zoho CRM 85.4
- 5 Brevo 81.3
- 6 ActiveCampaign 81.1
- 7 Outreach 78.7
- 8 Vendasta 77.4
- 9 Surfe 77.3
- 10 Close 77.2
- 1 Customermates 72.8
- 2 Lightfield 67.4
- 3 Astranexo 66.7
- 4 lemlist 65
- 5 Drippay 64.5
- 6 Crevio 63.4
- 7 Joinways 63.4
- 8 Frihet 63.1
- 9 Relm 63
- 10 Monaco 61.4
Coverage caveat. 298 of 426 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.