CRM
Customer Relationship ManagementCRM
Providers using this tag (375)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 28 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 59 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 69 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 73 Limited public surface area
Emerging 87 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 58 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 1 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (186)
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 62 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 32 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 22 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 34 Limited public surface area
Emerging 27 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 9 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (45)
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 356 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 | 45.1 | 23.9 | +21.2 | 356 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 37.1 | 23.2 | +13.9 | 356 |
| Operational Transparency | 26.6 | 13 | +13.6 | 356 |
| Contract Quality | 29.2 | 17.2 | +12 | 356 |
| Discoverability | 64.8 | 57.9 | +6.9 | 356 |
| Contract Governance | 9.8 | 6.5 | +3.3 | 356 |
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) | 30% | 13% | +17 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 29% | 12% | +17 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 32% | 11% | +21 |
| Security | 99% | 98% | +1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 3% | 2% | +1 |
| Governance rules | 17% | 16% | +1 |
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 93.2
- 2 Salesforce 88.8
- 3 Ada 87.6
- 4 Zoho CRM 84.4
- 5 Brevo 80.8
- 6 Outreach 79.3
- 7 ActiveCampaign 76.6
- 8 Thanx 74.4
- 9 Surfe 74.1
- 10 Close 73.7
- 1 Lightfield 67.4
- 2 lemlist 65
- 3 Drippay 64.5
- 4 Relm 62.6
- 5 Monaco 61.4
- 6 UserGems 60.7
- 7 Entergram 60.4
- 8 Close 60
- 9 Apollo.io 59.2
- 10 Poggio Labs 58.6
Coverage caveat. 294 of 356 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.