Document AI
Providers using this tag (29)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Strong 3 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 7 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 10 Limited public surface area
Unrated 1 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (5)
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 1 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Developing 1 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 1 Limited public surface area
Emerging 2 Early or largely undocumented
Companies reaching this through an API (2)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Document AI” 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 28 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Document AI, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contract Quality | 36.9 | 18.6 | +18.3 | 28 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 35.4 | 24.5 | +10.9 | 28 |
| Discoverability | 69 | 59.1 | +9.9 | 28 |
| Operational Transparency | 20.5 | 13.2 | +7.3 | 28 |
| Contract Governance | 14.5 | 9.7 | +4.8 | 28 |
| Access Clarity | 34.3 | 30 | +4.3 | 28 |
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) | 24% | 18% | +6 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 31% | 16% | +15 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 14% | 13% | +1 |
| Security | 97% | 99% | -2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 3% | 1% | +2 |
| Governance rules | 69% | 36% | +33 |
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 Nanonets 55.7
- 2 Instabase 54.7
- 3 Azure AI Document Intelligence 54.5
- 4 DocuPipe 53.1
- 5 ParseForMe 52.5
- 6 Luminary 49.5
- 7 Indico Data 49.3
- 8 SchemaExtract 43.5
- 9 Upstage 43.2
- 10 Docspeed 40.6
- 1 Extend 59.4
- 2 Anvil 57.9
- 3 Nanonets 53
- 4 ParseForMe 36.1
- 5 Docspeed 35.9
- 6 Parseflow 31.6
- 7 Luminary 31.1
- 8 Sensible 31
- 9 Instabase 30.7
- 10 SchemaExtract 29.7
Coverage caveat. 21 of 28 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.