Data Integration
Providers using this tag (112)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 6 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 16 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 27 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 29 Limited public surface area
Emerging 17 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 16 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 1 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (39)
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 10 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 8 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 13 Limited public surface area
Emerging 4 Early or largely undocumented
Companies reaching this through an API (17)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Data Integration” 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
112 providers carry this tag directly, and 160 counting the 3 narrower tags below — 48 more to reach.
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 102 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Data Integration, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Developer Ergonomics | 45 | 23.2 | +21.8 | 102 |
| Access Clarity | 43.5 | 26.5 | +17 | 102 |
| Operational Transparency | 28.5 | 13.7 | +14.8 | 102 |
| Contract Quality | 30.6 | 17.6 | +13 | 102 |
| Discoverability | 65.6 | 58.1 | +7.5 | 102 |
| Contract Governance | 12.8 | 6.3 | +6.5 | 102 |
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) | 34% | 14% | +20 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 31% | 12% | +19 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 21% | 11% | +10 |
| Security | 99% | 98% | +1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 6% | 2% | +4 |
| Governance rules | 21% | 14% | +7 |
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 Confluent 86.8
- 2 Power Query 75.8
- 3 Azure Data Factory 72
- 4 Qlik Sense 72
- 5 Airbyte 70.3
- 6 Boomi 67.6
- 7 Improvado 65.4
- 8 Nexla 64.7
- 9 Oneschema 63.6
- 10 Talend 63
- 1 Airweave 60.2
- 2 Datarails 56.7
- 3 Informatica 54.4
- 4 Improvado 53.2
- 5 Weld 53
- 6 Talend 51.9
- 7 Flume Health 51.2
- 8 Syncari 50
- 9 Funnel 48.7
- 10 Precog 47.8
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.