Database
DatabasesDatabase
Providers using this tag (209)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 13 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 24 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 70 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 58 Limited public surface area
Emerging 25 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 17 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (192)
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 29 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 23 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 55 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 60 Limited public surface area
Emerging 20 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 5 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (81)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Database” 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.
Show all 81 companies ↓
Score breakdown
Where this tag sits
209 providers carry this tag directly, and 262 counting the 16 narrower tags below — 53 more to reach.
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 200 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Database, 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 | 46.1 | 23.2 | +22.9 | 200 |
| Contract Quality | 39.5 | 17.6 | +21.9 | 200 |
| Operational Transparency | 28.7 | 13.7 | +15 | 200 |
| Access Clarity | 40.2 | 26.5 | +13.7 | 200 |
| Discoverability | 65 | 58.1 | +6.9 | 200 |
| Contract Governance | 12.3 | 6.3 | +6 | 200 |
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) | 32% | 14% | +18 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 27% | 12% | +15 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 15% | 11% | +4 |
| Security | 98% | 98% | 0 |
| Arazzo workflows | 9% | 2% | +7 |
| Governance rules | 45% | 14% | +31 |
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 CData 84.4
- 2 Appwrite 83.2
- 3 Amazon DynamoDB 80.3
- 4 MongoDB 78.4
- 5 Oracle Cloud Infrastructure 76.4
- 6 Amazon Lightsail 75.3
- 7 ClickHouse 73.5
- 8 Prisma 72.7
- 9 Cockroach Labs 72
- 10 IBM 69.1
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.