Digital Twin
Digital TwinsDigital Twin
Providers using this tag (52)
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 5 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 6 Limited public surface area
Emerging 19 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 18 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (9)
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 →
Strong 1 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 3 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 2 Limited public surface area
Emerging 3 Early or largely undocumented
Companies reaching this through an API (4)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Digital Twin” 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 50 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Digital Twin, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Access Clarity | 26.8 | 26.5 | +0.3 | 50 |
| Contract Governance | 6.1 | 6.3 | -0.2 | 50 |
| Discoverability | 57.6 | 58.1 | -0.5 | 50 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 21.2 | 23.2 | -2 | 50 |
| Operational Transparency | 10.8 | 13.7 | -2.9 | 50 |
| Contract Quality | 13.1 | 17.6 | -4.5 | 50 |
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) | 10% | 14% | -4 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 12% | 12% | 0 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 16% | 11% | +5 |
| Security | 100% | 98% | +2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 4% | 2% | +2 |
| Governance rules | 16% | 14% | +2 |
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 Cumulocity 67
- 2 Bentley Systems 63.8
- 3 Autodesk 59.9
- 4 Amazon IoT TwinMaker 56.3
- 5 Siemens 53.7
- 6 Cosmo Tech 42.6
- 7 Siemens Insights Hub (MindSphere) 42
- 8 Cognite 41.5
- 9 Cintoo 41.2
- 10 MatterPort 38.9
- 1 Autodesk 44.6
- 2 Siemens 38.2
- 3 PassiveLogic 35.1
- 4 Cintoo 33.2
- 5 Cognite 29.4
- 6 Cosmo Tech 29
- 7 Amazon IoT TwinMaker 28.1
- 8 Siemens Insights Hub (MindSphere) 28.1
- 9 Sight Machine 25.2
- 10 Bentley Systems 24.8
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.