Encryption
Providers using this tag (48)
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 14 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 12 Limited public surface area
Minimal 11 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 1 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (31)
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 3 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 3 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 16 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 7 Limited public surface area
Companies reaching this through an API (16)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Encryption” 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
Where this tag sits
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 45 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Encryption, 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 | 41 | 23.2 | +17.8 | 45 |
| Access Clarity | 34.6 | 26.5 | +8.1 | 45 |
| Operational Transparency | 21.6 | 13.7 | +7.9 | 45 |
| Discoverability | 65.2 | 58.1 | +7.1 | 45 |
| Contract Quality | 22.2 | 17.6 | +4.6 | 45 |
| Contract Governance | 9.9 | 6.3 | +3.6 | 45 |
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) | 11% | 14% | -3 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 11% | 12% | -1 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 7% | 11% | -4 |
| Security | 98% | 98% | 0 |
| Arazzo workflows | 2% | 2% | 0 |
| Governance rules | 20% | 14% | +6 |
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 Paubox 68.4
- 2 Amazon KMS 62.1
- 3 Evervault 57.4
- 4 Amazon Certificate Manager 56.2
- 5 IronCore Labs 52.6
- 6 OpenBao 51.6
- 7 Virtru 49.1
- 8 Google Cloud KMS 47
- 9 Infisical 44.8
- 10 SpiderOak 44.7
- 1 Paubox 61.5
- 2 Seismic Systems 36.7
- 3 Amazon Certificate Manager 32
- 4 OpenBao 32
- 5 Evervault 31.5
- 6 HashiCorp Vault 29.8
- 7 Digicert 28.4
- 8 BlindInsight 25.7
- 9 Google Cloud KMS 24.8
- 10 IronCore Labs 24.6
Coverage caveat. 35 of 45 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 5 October 2026, across 29093 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.