FHIR
HL7 FHIRFHIR R4FHIR
Providers using this tag (172)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 16 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 25 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 37 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 39 Limited public surface area
Emerging 38 Early or largely undocumented
APIs with this tag (170)
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 29 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 29 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 43 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 38 Limited public surface area
Emerging 18 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 13 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (9)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “FHIR” 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
172 providers carry this tag directly, and 176 counting the 2 narrower tags below — 4 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 169 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged FHIR, 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 | 41.1 | 24.5 | +16.6 | 169 |
| Contract Quality | 31.4 | 18.6 | +12.8 | 169 |
| Operational Transparency | 23.6 | 13.2 | +10.4 | 169 |
| Contract Governance | 19.9 | 9.7 | +10.2 | 169 |
| Access Clarity | 38.1 | 30 | +8.1 | 169 |
| Discoverability | 66.8 | 59.1 | +7.7 | 169 |
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) | 16% | 18% | -2 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 16% | 16% | 0 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 41% | 13% | +28 |
| Security | 100% | 99% | +1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 4% | 1% | +3 |
| Governance rules | 51% | 36% | +15 |
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 Amigo 82
- 2 Elation Health 79.7
- 3 drchrono 78
- 4 Medplum 77.9
- 5 Health Gorilla 75.7
- 6 Microsoft Azure Health Data Services 73.5
- 7 Flexpa 72.7
- 8 Canvas Medical 71
- 9 AWS HealthLake 70
- 10 Optum 69.8
- 1 Medblocks 66.3
- 2 xCures 59.5
- 3 b.well 58.6
- 4 Medplum 55.8
- 5 Turquoise Health 54.6
- 6 anpheros-com 52.9
- 7 Amigo 50.3
- 8 Redox 50
- 9 ModMed 49.8
- 10 MedTrainer 49.1
Coverage caveat. 134 of 169 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.