Customer Experience
CXCustomer Experience
Providers using this tag (135)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 6 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 18 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 23 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 28 Limited public surface area
Emerging 27 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 32 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 1 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (12)
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 3 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 1 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 2 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 1 Limited public surface area
Emerging 4 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 1 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (5)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Customer Experience” 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
135 providers carry this tag directly, and 256 counting the 2 narrower tags below and the 2 beneath them — 121 more to reach.
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 127 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Customer Experience, 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 | 37.9 | 26.5 | +11.4 | 127 |
| Operational Transparency | 22.8 | 13.7 | +9.1 | 127 |
| Contract Quality | 26.2 | 17.6 | +8.6 | 127 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 30.9 | 23.2 | +7.7 | 127 |
| Discoverability | 63.6 | 58.1 | +5.5 | 127 |
| Contract Governance | 10.6 | 6.3 | +4.3 | 127 |
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) | 22% | 14% | +8 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 20% | 12% | +8 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 18% | 11% | +7 |
| Security | 99% | 98% | +1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 5% | 2% | +3 |
| Governance rules | 16% | 14% | +2 |
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 ActiveCampaign 77.6
- 2 Birdeye 77.3
- 3 Gainsight 74.7
- 4 Adobe Campaign 72
- 5 Adobe Experience Cloud 68.2
- 6 Lucidya 67.5
- 7 Erxes 65.6
- 8 parcelLab 63
- 9 AskNicely 61.9
- 10 Reputation 61.8
- 1 Birdeye 63.3
- 2 Genesys 57.4
- 3 Adobe Experience Cloud 55
- 4 Usersnap 53.1
- 5 Sprig 53.1
- 6 UserTesting 53
- 7 AskNicely 52.7
- 8 ActiveCampaign 52.2
- 9 Survicate 44.6
- 10 Contentsquare 44.6
Coverage caveat. 104 of 127 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.