gRPC
Providers using this tag (90)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 1 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 7 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 29 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 34 Limited public surface area
Emerging 12 Early or largely undocumented
APIs with this tag (152)
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 4 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 10 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 45 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 65 Limited public surface area
Emerging 23 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 5 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (68)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “gRPC” 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 68 companies ↓
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 |
|---|---|
| Buf Schema Registry (public Protocol Buffers modules, gRPC / ConnectRPC schema publishers) | 58% |
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 90 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged gRPC, 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 | 50.5 | 23.2 | +27.3 | 90 |
| Contract Quality | 30.5 | 17.2 | +13.3 | 90 |
| Operational Transparency | 26.1 | 13 | +13.1 | 90 |
| Discoverability | 65.6 | 57.9 | +7.7 | 90 |
| Contract Governance | 8 | 6.5 | +1.5 | 90 |
| Access Clarity | 24.6 | 23.9 | +0.7 | 90 |
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) | 19% | 12% | +7 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 10% | 11% | -1 |
| Security | 96% | 98% | -2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 2% | 2% | 0 |
| 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 Postman 78
- 2 Stack Moxie 64.5
- 3 Buf 63.9
- 4 Viam 59.2
- 5 Heroic Labs 58.8
- 6 Sift Stack 57.4
- 7 Nord Security 56.9
- 8 Tailor 54.9
- 9 Kentik 54
- 10 AgiBot 53.5
- 1 Postman 55.6
- 2 Buf 49.2
- 3 Mysten Labs 48.6
- 4 Kurrent 46.5
- 5 Nord Security 42.9
- 6 AGNTCY 42.5
- 7 Polar Signals 41.2
- 8 OpenX 40.5
- 9 Sift Stack 38.6
- 10 Tailor 38.3
Coverage caveat. 83 of 90 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.