Data Protection
Providers using this tag (62)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Strong 2 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 11 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 19 Limited public surface area
Emerging 11 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 13 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 4 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (17)
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 3 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 1 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 7 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 5 Limited public surface area
Emerging 1 Early or largely undocumented
Companies reaching this through an API (6)
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 55 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 | 34.7 | 23.2 | +11.5 | 55 |
| Access Clarity | 37.5 | 26.5 | +11 | 55 |
| Operational Transparency | 17.9 | 13.7 | +4.2 | 55 |
| Contract Quality | 21.2 | 17.6 | +3.6 | 55 |
| Contract Governance | 9.6 | 6.3 | +3.3 | 55 |
| Discoverability | 59.1 | 58.1 | +1 | 55 |
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) | 15% | 14% | +1 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 17% | 12% | +5 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 15% | 11% | +4 |
| Security | 93% | 98% | -5 |
| Arazzo workflows | 2% | 2% | 0 |
| Governance rules | 17% | 14% | +3 |
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 Cohesity 69.5
- 3 Amazon KMS 62.1
- 4 Druva 54.8
- 5 Veritas NetBackup 52.8
- 6 Microsoft Defender 51.4
- 7 TrustBoost PII Sanitizer 50.1
- 8 Pimloc 49.1
- 9 Slide 47.8
- 10 Eon 44.2
- 1 Druva 58.4
- 2 Acronis 56.3
- 3 Coro 44.6
- 4 Cohesity 42.1
- 5 Veeam 38.4
- 6 Eon 33.6
- 7 Microsoft Defender 32.7
- 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.