Lending
Providers using this tag (396)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 2 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 9 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 37 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 53 Limited public surface area
Emerging 128 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 166 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 1 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (57)
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 4 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 10 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 21 Limited public surface area
Emerging 17 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 2 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (24)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Lending” 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
396 providers carry this tag directly, and 397 counting the 2 narrower tags below — 1 more to reach.
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 372 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Lending, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Discoverability | 56.9 | 58.1 | -1.2 | 372 |
| Contract Governance | 4.6 | 6.3 | -1.7 | 372 |
| Access Clarity | 23.9 | 26.5 | -2.6 | 372 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 19.9 | 23.2 | -3.3 | 372 |
| Operational Transparency | 10 | 13.7 | -3.7 | 372 |
| Contract Quality | 11.8 | 17.6 | -5.8 | 372 |
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) | 7% | 14% | -7 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 5% | 12% | -7 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 7% | 11% | -4 |
| Security | 100% | 98% | +2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 2% | 2% | 0 |
| Governance rules | 3% | 14% | -11 |
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 Blnk Finance 67.4
- 2 Method Financial 67.3
- 3 Unit 64.5
- 4 Lev 63
- 5 Heron 61.6
- 6 Kita 60.8
- 7 Freddie Mac 60
- 8 Total Expert 58.1
- 9 SoFi Technologies 56.4
- 10 Copper.co 54.8
- 1 nCino 56.7
- 2 Lev 54.5
- 3 SoFi Technologies 52.6
- 4 Blnk Finance 52.2
- 5 AutoFi 47.3
- 6 ChargeAfter 45.9
- 7 Total Expert 41.2
- 8 Copper.co 40.9
- 9 Lead Bank 40.9
- 10 Kita 39.6
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.