Fleet Management
FleetFleetsFleet Management
Providers using this tag (244)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 3 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 16 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 37 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 35 Limited public surface area
Emerging 74 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 78 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 1 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (99)
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 17 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 12 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 17 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 24 Limited public surface area
Emerging 24 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 5 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (51)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Fleet Management” 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 51 companies ↓
Score breakdown
Where this tag sits
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 |
|---|---|
| FMCSA Registered Electronic Logging Devices | 52% |
| Automotive and Mobility | 44% |
| Open Mobility Foundation MDS (shared micromobility, carshare, delivery robots, passenger services) | 29% |
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 224 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Fleet Management, 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 | 19.8 | 18.6 | +1.2 | 224 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 25.6 | 24.5 | +1.1 | 224 |
| Discoverability | 59.4 | 59.1 | +0.3 | 224 |
| Contract Governance | 9.7 | 9.7 | 0 | 224 |
| Operational Transparency | 12.4 | 13.2 | -0.8 | 224 |
| Access Clarity | 27.8 | 30 | -2.2 | 224 |
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) | 7% | 18% | -11 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 7% | 16% | -9 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 13% | 13% | 0 |
| Security | 100% | 99% | +1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 1% | 1% | 0 |
| Governance rules | 35% | 36% | -1 |
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 HERE 79
- 2 Amazon IoT Device Management 69.8
- 3 raute-io 67.7
- 4 Trimble 65.9
- 5 Onfleet 65.8
- 6 Switch Labs 65.1
- 7 Nash 62.9
- 8 Foxglove Technologies 62.8
- 9 Particle 62.7
- 10 tread.io 61.4
- 1 Lexio 70.1
- 2 thinair-co 67.6
- 3 HERE 55.5
- 4 Fleetkeep 54.6
- 5 Lytx 48.1
- 6 Decisiv 46.4
- 7 Onfleet 46.3
- 8 BP 45.6
- 9 Mercedes-Benz Mercedes me 43
- 10 Nash 41.8
Coverage caveat. 196 of 224 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.