Data Protection
Providers using this tag (63)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 1 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 3 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 13 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 15 Limited public surface area
Emerging 15 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 14 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 2 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (18)
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 5 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 5 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 4 Limited public surface area
Companies reaching this through an API (8)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Data Protection” 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
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 54 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Data Protection, 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 | 35 | 23.4 | +11.6 | 54 |
| Access Clarity | 37.8 | 26.5 | +11.3 | 54 |
| Contract Governance | 10.3 | 6.4 | +3.9 | 54 |
| Operational Transparency | 17.9 | 14 | +3.9 | 54 |
| Contract Quality | 23 | 19.8 | +3.2 | 54 |
| Discoverability | 63 | 61.2 | +1.8 | 54 |
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) | 11% | 10% | +1 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 16% | 13% | +3 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 14% | 11% | +3 |
| Security | 98% | 97% | +1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 2% | 2% | 0 |
| Governance rules | 18% | 14% | +4 |
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 72.9
- 2 Cohesity 66.1
- 3 Amazon KMS 61.1
- 4 CCPA (California Consumer Privacy Act) 59.1
- 5 Veritas NetBackup 52.4
- 6 Druva 52
- 7 Amazon Backup 49.8
- 8 Pimloc 48.9
- 9 Slide 47.4
- 10 Eon 43.7
- 1 Druva 56.7
- 2 Acronis 45.9
- 3 Cohesity 41.7
- 4 Coro 41
- 5 Veeam 38.4
- 6 CCPA (California Consumer Privacy Act) 36.5
- 7 Eon 33.6
- 8 Veritas NetBackup 32.3
- 9 Infinidat 31.8
- 10 Backupify 30.6
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.