KYC
Know Your CustomerKYC
Providers using this tag (156)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 3 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 19 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 61 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 29 Limited public surface area
Emerging 28 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 15 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 1 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (98)
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 1 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 8 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 47 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 19 Limited public surface area
Emerging 18 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 5 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (37)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “KYC” 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
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 152 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged KYC, 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 | 43.2 | 23.2 | +20 | 152 |
| Contract Quality | 36.5 | 17.6 | +18.9 | 152 |
| Operational Transparency | 25.9 | 13.7 | +12.2 | 152 |
| Access Clarity | 37 | 26.5 | +10.5 | 152 |
| Discoverability | 67.9 | 58.1 | +9.8 | 152 |
| Contract Governance | 9.7 | 6.3 | +3.4 | 152 |
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) | 14% | 14% | 0 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 15% | 12% | +3 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 21% | 11% | +10 |
| Security | 99% | 98% | +1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 7% | 2% | +5 |
| Governance rules | 14% | 14% | 0 |
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 Uphold 70.6
- 2 OpenSanctions 67.9
- 3 Highnote 67
- 4 Lightspark 66.4
- 5 ComplyAdvantage 64.7
- 6 Socure 63.6
- 7 Truora 63.1
- 8 iDenfy 62.7
- 9 Fenergo 62.3
- 10 Didit 62
- 1 Didit 59.8
- 2 Trulioo 53.9
- 3 Dwolla 52.9
- 4 Authologic 49
- 5 Lili 48.6
- 6 ComplyAdvantage 47.3
- 7 Weavr 46.7
- 8 Fenergo 46.5
- 9 Lightspark 46.2
- 10 Green Check Verified 45.7
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.