Hardware
Providers using this tag (703)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Strong 1 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 22 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 39 Limited public surface area
Emerging 145 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 479 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (28)
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 1 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 8 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 7 Limited public surface area
Emerging 9 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 3 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (21)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Hardware” 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
703 providers carry this tag directly, and 704 counting the 1 narrower tag below — 1 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.
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 574 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Hardware, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contract Governance | 2.8 | 6.5 | -3.7 | 574 |
| Discoverability | 53.4 | 57.9 | -4.5 | 574 |
| Operational Transparency | 4.1 | 13 | -8.9 | 574 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 12.8 | 23.2 | -10.4 | 574 |
| Access Clarity | 12.8 | 23.9 | -11.1 | 574 |
| Contract Quality | 3.7 | 17.2 | -13.5 | 574 |
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% | 13% | -7 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 2% | 12% | -10 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 6% | 11% | -5 |
| Security | 97% | 98% | -1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 0% | 2% | -2 |
| Governance rules | 3% | 16% | -13 |
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 Particle 55.3
- 2 Google Quantum AI 53.7
- 3 AgiBot 53.5
- 4 TARXAN 50.4
- 5 Nest 47.9
- 6 Alice Bob 47.8
- 7 First Resonance 46.8
- 8 Google Distributed Cloud 46.8
- 9 Wahoo Fitness 46.5
- 10 Oxide 46.2
- 1 First Resonance 45.5
- 2 Renesas 42
- 3 Cofactr 41.7
- 4 EFFECT Photonics 40
- 5 ColdSnap 36
- 6 AgiBot 35.8
- 7 Ethernovia 35.2
- 8 Clover 33.8
- 9 Telemetron 33.6
- 10 Tarana Wireless 33.5
Coverage caveat. 563 of 574 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.