Fitness
Providers using this tag (151)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Strong 4 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 15 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 23 Limited public surface area
Emerging 68 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 39 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (14)
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 →
Strong 1 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 6 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 2 Limited public surface area
Emerging 4 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 1 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (4)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Fitness” 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
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 |
|---|---|
| Health and Wellness (consumer health, fitness, wearables) | 55% |
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 134 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Fitness, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Access Clarity | 30 | 30 | 0 | 134 |
| Discoverability | 56.9 | 59.1 | -2.2 | 134 |
| Contract Governance | 6.3 | 9.7 | -3.4 | 134 |
| Contract Quality | 14.9 | 18.6 | -3.7 | 134 |
| Operational Transparency | 9.2 | 13.2 | -4 | 134 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 20.2 | 24.5 | -4.3 | 134 |
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) | 15% | 18% | -3 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 12% | 16% | -4 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 21% | 13% | +8 |
| Security | 98% | 99% | -1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 1% | 1% | 0 |
| Governance rules | 26% | 36% | -10 |
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 Fitbit 61.5
- 2 EGYM 59.5
- 3 Mindbody 58.6
- 4 Coach Watts 57.5
- 5 fatsecret 52.9
- 6 Strava 52
- 7 Google Fit REST 51.4
- 8 Oura 50.4
- 9 BodySpec 48.4
- 10 WHOOP 48.4
- 1 BodySpec 53.8
- 2 EGYM 50.5
- 3 Strava 46.9
- 4 Coach Watts 42
- 5 Coach Icarus 40
- 6 Hyperice 39.6
- 7 Fitnito 36
- 8 Wellhub 35.2
- 9 Wger 35.1
- 10 WHOOP 35
Coverage caveat. 118 of 134 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.