Foundation Models
Foundation ModelFoundation Models
Providers using this tag (125)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Strong 4 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 18 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 20 Limited public surface area
Emerging 21 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 60 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (13)
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 4 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 5 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 1 Limited public surface area
Emerging 3 Early or largely undocumented
Companies reaching this through an API (4)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Foundation Models” 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
125 providers carry this tag directly, and 420 counting the 1 narrower tag below — 295 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.
| Market | Share of the market's providers |
|---|---|
| AI Model Routing | 39% |
| Typed Decision Models | 27% |
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 119 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Foundation Models, 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 | 24.8 | 23.2 | +1.6 | 119 |
| Discoverability | 58.8 | 57.9 | +0.9 | 119 |
| Contract Quality | 18.1 | 17.2 | +0.9 | 119 |
| Operational Transparency | 13.8 | 13 | +0.8 | 119 |
| Access Clarity | 22.5 | 23.9 | -1.4 | 119 |
| Contract Governance | 4.5 | 6.5 | -2 | 119 |
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) | 20% | 13% | +7 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 20% | 12% | +8 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 4% | 11% | -7 |
| Security | 98% | 98% | 0 |
| Arazzo workflows | 3% | 2% | +1 |
| Governance rules | 14% | 16% | -2 |
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 Anthropic 89
- 2 OpenAI 84.5
- 3 Perplexity 61.6
- 4 NVIDIA NIM 60.6
- 5 Amazon Nova 60.2
- 6 H Company 57.7
- 7 Prime Intellect 53.9
- 8 Google Gemini 53.5
- 9 Relace 52.4
- 10 Yutori 51.7
- 1 Perplexity 61.6
- 2 OpenAI 58.4
- 3 Prior Labs 54.8
- 4 Fastino Labs 54.6
- 5 Yutori 51.1
- 6 Amazon Nova 50.5
- 7 Anthropic 47.6
- 8 H Company 46.4
- 9 Relace 38.8
- 10 Together AI 38
Coverage caveat. 108 of 119 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 24 October 2026, across 31984 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.