Database
DatabasesDatabase
Providers using this tag (246)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 30 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 34 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 58 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 61 Limited public surface area
Emerging 39 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 22 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (198)
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 36 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 36 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 50 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 47 Limited public surface area
Emerging 22 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 7 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (88)
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 88 companies ↓
Score breakdown
Where this tag sits
246 providers carry this tag directly, and 291 counting the 16 narrower tags below — 45 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 228 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 | 46.5 | 24.5 | +22 | 228 |
| Contract Quality | 39.1 | 18.6 | +20.5 | 228 |
| Operational Transparency | 29.1 | 13.2 | +15.9 | 228 |
| Access Clarity | 43.5 | 30 | +13.5 | 228 |
| Discoverability | 66.9 | 59.1 | +7.8 | 228 |
| Contract Governance | 16.9 | 9.7 | +7.2 | 228 |
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) | 38% | 18% | +20 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 34% | 16% | +18 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 17% | 13% | +4 |
| Security | 98% | 99% | -1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 8% | 1% | +7 |
| Governance rules | 73% | 36% | +37 |
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 Appwrite 84.6
- 2 CData 84
- 3 Amazon DynamoDB 82.4
- 4 Quickbase 80.5
- 5 MongoDB 79.9
- 6 Cockroach Labs 79.2
- 7 ClickHouse 77.1
- 8 Amazon Lightsail 76.4
- 9 Oracle Cloud Infrastructure 75.6
- 10 Prisma 74.9
- 1 CData 67.3
- 2 ydb-qdrant-tech 62.2
- 3 MongoDB 60
- 4 Oracle 59
- 5 ClickHouse 58.4
- 6 Insforge 56.6
- 7 AmunCore 56.5
- 8 Appwrite 56.3
- 9 Notion 54.9
- 10 Prisma 54
Coverage caveat. 131 of 228 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 14 November 2026, across 41591 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.