Generative AI
GenAIGenerative AI
Providers using this tag (309)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 13 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 42 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 53 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 46 Limited public surface area
Emerging 91 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 63 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 1 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (73)
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 16 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 14 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 19 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 11 Limited public surface area
Emerging 10 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 3 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (26)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Generative AI” 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
309 providers carry this tag directly, and 782 counting the 3 narrower tags below — 473 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 | 35% |
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 298 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Generative AI, 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 | 42.1 | 30 | +12.1 | 298 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 34.4 | 24.5 | +9.9 | 298 |
| Operational Transparency | 19.1 | 13.2 | +5.9 | 298 |
| Discoverability | 63.6 | 59.1 | +4.5 | 298 |
| Contract Quality | 22.4 | 18.6 | +3.8 | 298 |
| Contract Governance | 11.1 | 9.7 | +1.4 | 298 |
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) | 31% | 18% | +13 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 33% | 16% | +17 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 17% | 13% | +4 |
| Security | 98% | 99% | -1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 4% | 1% | +3 |
| Governance rules | 41% | 36% | +5 |
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 OpenAI 82.5
- 2 Adobe 75.5
- 3 Amazon Q 75.1
- 4 Amazon Polly 73.1
- 5 Clipia.ai 71.8
- 6 FLORA 70.6
- 7 Lacuna 69.3
- 8 Segmind 68.8
- 9 Azure OpenAI Service 68.3
- 10 Yelp 68.2
- 1 AutoContent API 66.1
- 2 Clipia.ai 65.7
- 3 Adobe 64.2
- 4 Bria 63.5
- 5 FLORA 63.2
- 6 Create Prints 62.4
- 7 Prezent 61.7
- 8 BudgetPixel 60
- 9 SpAItial 58.6
- 10 OpenAI 58.4
Coverage caveat. 229 of 298 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.