Identity Federation
Providers using this tag (289)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 6 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 10 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 53 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 113 Limited public surface area
Emerging 103 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 4 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (243)
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 33 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 97 Limited public surface area
Emerging 111 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 1 Almost no public developer surface
Score breakdown
Where this tag sits
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 |
|---|---|
| Identity and Auth | 84% |
| Higher Education and Research | 54% |
| IIIF and Cultural Heritage (GLAM image interoperability, Linked Art) | 53% |
| OpenID Certified Implementations (OIDC, FAPI, OpenID4VC) | 23% |
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 288 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Identity Federation, 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 | 34.8 | 17.2 | +17.6 | 288 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 33 | 23.2 | +9.8 | 288 |
| Discoverability | 66.1 | 57.9 | +8.2 | 288 |
| Contract Governance | 12.2 | 6.5 | +5.7 | 288 |
| Operational Transparency | 17.6 | 13 | +4.6 | 288 |
| Access Clarity | 25.7 | 23.9 | +1.8 | 288 |
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) | 5% | 12% | -7 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 34% | 11% | +23 |
| Security | 100% | 98% | +2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 2% | 2% | 0 |
| Governance rules | 48% | 16% | +32 |
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 WSO2 83
- 2 Microsoft Entra ID (formerly Azure AD) 81.8
- 3 Cvent 77.1
- 4 Okta 73.8
- 5 Auth0 70.4
- 6 Authentik 70.1
- 7 Amazon Cognito 65.7
- 8 Gluu 62.9
- 9 University of Waterloo 61.3
- 10 Stytch 60.4
- 1 WorkOS 58.8
- 2 Microsoft Entra ID (formerly Azure AD) 55.1
- 3 Okta 51.1
- 4 Supabase 48.1
- 5 PlanSource 46.4
- 6 Rice University 44.8
- 7 Cvent 44.7
- 8 Columbia University 41
- 9 CyberArk 39.2
- 10 Newcastle University 37.4
Coverage caveat. 214 of 288 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.