Embeddings
EmbeddingEmbeddings
Providers using this tag (54)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 3 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 10 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 23 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 13 Limited public surface area
Emerging 5 Early or largely undocumented
APIs with this tag (147)
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 15 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 34 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 29 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 52 Limited public surface area
Emerging 16 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 1 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (102)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Embeddings” 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 102 companies ↓
Score breakdown
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.
| Market | Share of the market's providers |
|---|---|
| Typed Decision Models | 27% |
| AI Model Routing | 26% |
| Retrieval, Vector and RAG | 20% |
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 53 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Embeddings, 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 | 46.1 | 18.6 | +27.5 | 53 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 47.8 | 24.5 | +23.3 | 53 |
| Operational Transparency | 32.7 | 13.2 | +19.5 | 53 |
| Access Clarity | 49 | 30 | +19 | 53 |
| Discoverability | 69.4 | 59.1 | +10.3 | 53 |
| Contract Governance | 17.2 | 9.7 | +7.5 | 53 |
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) | 42% | 18% | +24 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 38% | 16% | +22 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 11% | 13% | -2 |
| Security | 98% | 99% | -1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 2% | 1% | +1 |
| Governance rules | 89% | 36% | +53 |
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 Octen 70.6
- 2 Hugging Face 69.1
- 3 Azure OpenAI Service 68.3
- 4 Pexafy 65.8
- 5 Perplexity 65.7
- 6 AIMLAPI 62.6
- 7 RightNow AI 62.5
- 8 SambaNova Systems 62
- 9 Google Gemini 61.7
- 10 Pinecone 60.1
- 1 Perplexity 67.7
- 2 AIMLAPI 54
- 3 Pexafy 53.2
- 4 Octen 52.1
- 5 Mixedbread 51.2
- 6 Pinecone 46.9
- 7 Venice.ai 43.2
- 8 Mnemo Protocol 41.7
- 9 Cohere 41.4
- 10 DocuSeal 40.5
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.