established · 2.4 capability resource

Data Governance

Score 24.9 / 100 84 providers +9 via APIs 24 APIs Search apis.io →

Providers using this tag (84)

Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.

Exemplar 7 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 13 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 21 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 15 Limited public surface area
Emerging 13 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 13 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 2 Not yet scored

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 4 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 11 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 3 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 4 Limited public surface area
Emerging 2 Early or largely undocumented

Companies reaching this through an API (9)

These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Data Governance” 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.

Azure Databricks Google Cloud Healthcare LF AI and Data Oracle Oracle Planning Red Hat Rokt RudderStack Tableau Desktop

Score breakdown

Frequency
55.4
log-scaled weighted occurrences
Breadth
2.2
spread across providers
Quality lift
45.8
mean composite of providers using it
Cohesion
9.0
strength of nearest seed neighbor

Where this tag sits

Governance broader

Related tags

Data Lineage 16 co-occurrences Lineage 13 co-occurrences Data Security 17 co-occurrences Data Quality 19 co-occurrences Data Discovery 11 co-occurrences Access Control 17 co-occurrences Databricks 9 co-occurrences Data Catalog 23 co-occurrences

Where this tag comes from

Provider tag84
Api tag24

Cohort brief

Auto-generated

The 81 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Data Governance, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.

Providers
81
of 84 in the catalog
Mean Kin Score
37.7
+14.8 vs catalog 22.9
Mean Agent Readiness
21.9
+10.0 vs catalog 11.9
Spread
3.4–86.8
median 39.3 · σ 21.2
How the 81 split by band
Exemplar 7Strong 12Developing 22Thin 15Emerging 13Minimal 12
Facet averages, against the whole catalog
FacetThis cohortCatalogDifferenceScored
Developer Ergonomics 42.5 23.2 +19.3 81
Operational Transparency 28.4 13.7 +14.7 81
Access Clarity 41.2 26.5 +14.7 81
Contract Quality 28.2 17.6 +10.6 81
Discoverability 64.8 58.1 +6.7 81
Contract Governance 12.5 6.3 +6.2 81

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.

What this cohort publishes
ArtifactThis cohortCatalogDifference
MCP server (any) 42% 14% +28
MCP server (first-party) 42% 12% +30
Agent Skills 0% 0% 0
OAuth scopes 18% 11% +7
Security 98% 98% 0
Arazzo workflows 10% 2% +8
Governance rules 22% 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.

Top by Kin Score
  1. 1 Confluent 86.8
  2. 2 Snowflake 82.7
  3. 3 OneTrust 72.7
  4. 4 Sigma Computing 71.9
  5. 5 Soda 71.9
  6. 6 IBM 69.1
  7. 7 Microsoft Purview 66.8
  8. 8 Kiteworks 65.4
  9. 9 Databricks 65.3
  10. 10 Nexla 64.7
Top by Agent Readiness
  1. 1 Sigma Computing 59.5
  2. 2 Druva 58.4
  3. 3 data.world 56
  4. 4 OneTrust 55.9
  5. 5 Informatica 54.4
  6. 6 Databricks 51.5
  7. 7 DataHub 51.4
  8. 8 Syncari 50
  9. 9 Sweep 48.5
  10. 10 mParticle 48.4
All 84 members of this roster resolve to a provider in the catalog; 81 carry a score (96%). The figures above describe the scored members only.
Coverage caveat. 58 of 81 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.

MCP server

One button, every client — Claude, Cursor, VS Code and the rest.

https://apis.io/mcp

Tools for tags

7 MCP tools reach this
  • find_tagsBrowse and filter every tag in the catalog.
  • get_cohortThis tag as a scored cohort — every provider carrying it, with scores.
  • cohort_statsPRO — the distribution across this tag: mean, median, band split, adoption rates.
  • cohort_rankingsPRO — the leaderboard, on composite AND agent-readiness axes.
  • apis_io_searchSTART HERE — APIs, providers and tags for one query, each with its total.
  • resolveTurn a domain, URL or GitHub org into the provider it belongs to.
  • find_cohortsEvery scored population of providers in the catalog.
All 92 tools →

Call it yourself

curl for this page
This tag
curl "https://apis.io/api/v1/tags/data-governance"
All tags
curl "https://apis.io/api/v1/tags?limit=25"
As a scored cohort
curl "https://apis.io/api/v1/cohorts/tag/data-governance"
The distribution (Pro)
curl "https://apis.io/api/v1/cohorts/tag/data-governance/stats" \
  -H "X-API-Key: $APIS_IO_KEY"

Discovery needs no key. Ratings and market analysis are Pro.

Get an API key

Free tier, no form to fill in. Signing in shares your email address with us — we store it to create your key and to recognise you if you sign in with another provider. See our Privacy Policy and Terms.

A second provider on the same verified email joins the account you already have.