Geocoding
Providers using this tag (119)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 2 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 7 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 21 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 10 Limited public surface area
Minimal 75 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (125)
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 3 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 11 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 18 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 11 Limited public surface area
Emerging 8 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 74 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (14)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Geocoding” 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
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 113 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Geocoding, 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 | 20.8 | 19.8 | +1 | 113 |
| Discoverability | 62.1 | 61.2 | +0.9 | 113 |
| Operational Transparency | 13.2 | 14 | -0.8 | 113 |
| Contract Governance | 5 | 6.4 | -1.4 | 113 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 19.4 | 23.4 | -4 | 113 |
| Access Clarity | 19.1 | 26.5 | -7.4 | 113 |
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) | 6% | 10% | -4 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 11% | 13% | -2 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 5% | 11% | -6 |
| Security | 100% | 97% | +3 |
| Arazzo workflows | 4% | 2% | +2 |
| Governance rules | 18% | 14% | +4 |
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 OpenMercantil 88.2
- 2 HERE 68.4
- 3 ESRI ArcGIS 65.8
- 4 OpenWeatherMap 64.9
- 5 La Poste Groupe 64.5
- 6 positionstack 64.2
- 7 Onfleet 61
- 8 APIFreaks - API Hub for Developers 58.2
- 9 Amazon Location Service 58
- 10 IPGeolocation.io 53.9
- 1 ESRI ArcGIS 56
- 2 HERE 55.9
- 3 OpenMercantil 46.6
- 4 APIFreaks - API Hub for Developers 35.9
- 5 TomTom 35.2
- 6 La Poste Groupe 35.1
- 7 Moody's RMS 34.9
- 8 IPstack 32.7
- 9 Onfleet 32.5
- 10 IPGeolocation.io 30.6
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.