Cybersecurity
Providers using this tag (474)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 5 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 16 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 64 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 74 Limited public surface area
Emerging 162 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 136 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (24)
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 2 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 1 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 5 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 7 Limited public surface area
Emerging 8 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 1 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (2)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Cybersecurity” 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
474 providers carry this tag directly, and 563 counting the 11 narrower tags below — 89 more to reach.
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 433 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Cybersecurity, 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 | 29.1 | 26.5 | +2.6 | 433 |
| Discoverability | 60.2 | 58.1 | +2.1 | 433 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 25 | 23.2 | +1.8 | 433 |
| Contract Governance | 7.4 | 6.3 | +1.1 | 433 |
| Operational Transparency | 14.7 | 13.7 | +1 | 433 |
| Contract Quality | 13 | 17.6 | -4.6 | 433 |
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) | 18% | 14% | +4 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 17% | 12% | +5 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 9% | 11% | -2 |
| Security | 96% | 98% | -2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 1% | 2% | -1 |
| Governance rules | 6% | 14% | -8 |
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 Acronis 83.9
- 2 Palo Alto Networks 76.9
- 3 Delinea 73.9
- 4 Tenable 67.5
- 5 CrowdStrike 67.1
- 6 Orange Business 64.9
- 7 Valimail 64.2
- 8 Synthient API 60.4
- 9 OpenText Cybersecurity 60.3
- 10 Feedly 59.6
- 1 Feedly 66.9
- 2 Acronis 56.3
- 3 Huntress 55.6
- 4 DomainTools 53
- 5 Delinea 52.5
- 6 IRONSCALES 49.5
- 7 Opal Security 49.3
- 8 Horizon3.ai 48.4
- 9 Coro 44.6
- 10 Orange Business 43.5
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.