Finance
FinancialFinancialsFinance
Providers using this tag (408)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 3 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 18 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 73 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 120 Limited public surface area
Emerging 72 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 122 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (184)
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 8 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 27 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 46 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 56 Limited public surface area
Emerging 21 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 26 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (79)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Finance” 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 79 companies ↓
Score breakdown
Where this tag sits
408 providers carry this tag directly, and 4471 counting the 7 narrower tags below and the 135 beneath them — 4063 more to reach.
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 359 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Finance, 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 | 27 | 17.6 | +9.4 | 359 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 31.5 | 23.2 | +8.3 | 359 |
| Discoverability | 62.8 | 58.1 | +4.7 | 359 |
| Access Clarity | 29.6 | 26.5 | +3.1 | 359 |
| Operational Transparency | 16.5 | 13.7 | +2.8 | 359 |
| Contract Governance | 9 | 6.3 | +2.7 | 359 |
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% | 14% | +2 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 15% | 12% | +3 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 27% | 11% | +16 |
| Security | 100% | 98% | +2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 3% | 2% | +1 |
| Governance rules | 21% | 14% | +7 |
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 Plaid 86.1
- 2 Massive (formerly Polygon.io) 75.8
- 3 IBANforge 74
- 4 Zoho 65.1
- 5 Microsoft Dynamics NAV 63.7
- 6 Factset 63
- 7 Tink 62.3
- 8 Dow Jones 61.8
- 9 Cledara 61.5
- 10 Cube 60.2
- 1 EODHD 57.6
- 2 Morningstar 56.8
- 3 Datarails 56.7
- 4 Campfire 55.5
- 5 BTC War Live Market Data API 54.2
- 6 Runway Financial 53.5
- 7 Global Database 53.1
- 8 IBANforge 52.9
- 9 Pleo 52.9
- 10 Factset 52.8
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.