Data Catalog
Providers using this tag (219)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 4 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 8 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 8 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 9 Limited public surface area
Emerging 27 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 162 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 1 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (28)
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 4 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 7 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 9 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 5 Limited public surface area
Emerging 3 Early or largely undocumented
Companies reaching this through an API (21)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Data Catalog” 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
219 providers carry this tag directly, and 225 counting the 2 narrower tags below — 6 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 |
|---|---|
| Open Data Portals (CKAN / DCAT) | 65% |
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 217 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Data Catalog, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Discoverability | 64.5 | 59.1 | +5.4 | 217 |
| Operational Transparency | 8.6 | 13.2 | -4.6 | 217 |
| Contract Governance | 2.9 | 9.7 | -6.8 | 217 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 16.5 | 24.5 | -8 | 217 |
| Contract Quality | 7.1 | 18.6 | -11.5 | 217 |
| Access Clarity | 11.6 | 30 | -18.4 | 217 |
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) | 7% | 18% | -11 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 7% | 16% | -9 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 1% | 13% | -12 |
| Security | 99% | 99% | 0 |
| Arazzo workflows | 2% | 1% | +1 |
| Governance rules | 11% | 36% | -25 |
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 Amazon DataZone 75.2
- 2 AWS Glue 71.7
- 3 Sifflet 71.4
- 4 Microsoft Purview 70.1
- 5 Collate 66.4
- 6 Google Cloud Data Catalog 66
- 7 Talend 62
- 8 Informatica 61.4
- 9 Bigeye 61.2
- 10 Databricks 58.7
- 1 Collate 65.9
- 2 Databricks 58.9
- 3 data.world 58.4
- 4 AWS Glue 49.2
- 5 DataHub 48.9
- 6 Informatica 48
- 7 Amazon DataZone 46.3
- 8 Talend 45.7
- 9 Lakekeeper 45.5
- 10 Google Cloud Data Catalog 39.4
Coverage caveat. 201 of 217 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.