GPU
Providers using this tag (113)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 2 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 15 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 26 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 29 Limited public surface area
Emerging 26 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 14 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 1 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (47)
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 7 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 14 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 12 Limited public surface area
Emerging 8 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 3 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (13)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “GPU” 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 |
|---|---|
| MLOps and AI/ML Infrastructure (LF AI & Data, MLPerf, Kubeflow) | 21% |
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 108 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged GPU, 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 | 40.5 | 24.5 | +16 | 108 |
| Contract Quality | 33 | 18.6 | +14.4 | 108 |
| Access Clarity | 37.8 | 30 | +7.8 | 108 |
| Discoverability | 65.6 | 59.1 | +6.5 | 108 |
| Operational Transparency | 19.5 | 13.2 | +6.3 | 108 |
| Contract Governance | 13.9 | 9.7 | +4.2 | 108 |
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) | 22% | 18% | +4 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 25% | 16% | +9 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 8% | 13% | -5 |
| Security | 97% | 99% | -2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 4% | 1% | +3 |
| Governance rules | 61% | 36% | +25 |
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 NexGen Cloud 69.8
- 2 Segmind 68.8
- 3 Modal 66.1
- 4 Linode 65.8
- 5 fal 65.2
- 6 Paperspace 64.5
- 7 The San Francisco Compute Company 62.7
- 8 SAKURA internet 62.6
- 9 RightNow AI 62.5
- 10 Mithril 62.3
- 1 The San Francisco Compute Company 55.9
- 2 janction-jp 51.3
- 3 Vultr 49.8
- 4 fal 48.1
- 5 Farpy 44.2
- 6 AmpleRun 43.7
- 7 NexGen Cloud 43.3
- 8 Thunder Compute 42.4
- 9 Linode 42.1
- 10 Vast.ai 41.4
Coverage caveat. 77 of 108 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.