Database
DatabasesDatabase
Providers using this tag (216)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 10 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 25 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 64 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 65 Limited public surface area
Emerging 30 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 20 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (194)
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 22 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 30 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 54 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 58 Limited public surface area
Emerging 23 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 7 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
216 providers carry this tag directly, and 256 counting the 16 narrower tags below — 40 more to reach.
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Markets provisional
Kin Score markets whose measured providers carry this tag. Share is the fraction of the market's measured providers that carry it — it describes the market, not this tag.
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 204 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 | 46.2 | 23.2 | +23 | 204 |
| Contract Quality | 38.3 | 17.2 | +21.1 | 204 |
| Operational Transparency | 28.2 | 13 | +15.2 | 204 |
| Access Clarity | 34.4 | 23.9 | +10.5 | 204 |
| Discoverability | 65.4 | 57.9 | +7.5 | 204 |
| Contract Governance | 11.7 | 6.5 | +5.2 | 204 |
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) | 31% | 13% | +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% | 16% | +29 |
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 82.9
- 2 Appwrite 82.3
- 3 Amazon DynamoDB 78.8
- 4 MongoDB 76.9
- 5 Oracle Cloud Infrastructure 75.3
- 6 Amazon Lightsail 73.8
- 7 ClickHouse 72
- 8 Prisma 71.7
- 9 Cockroach Labs 71.5
- 10 Amazon Neptune 66.9
- 1 CData 67.3
- 2 Oracle 61.7
- 3 ClickHouse 58.4
- 4 Insforge 56.6
- 5 AmunCore 56.5
- 6 MongoDB 56
- 7 Notion 54.9
- 8 Prisma 54
- 9 Appwrite 53.5
- 10 Oracle Cloud Infrastructure 52.1
Coverage caveat. 147 of 204 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 24 October 2026, across 31984 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.