LMS
Learning Management SystemLearning ManagementLMS
Providers using this tag (118)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 3 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 5 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 15 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 30 Limited public surface area
Emerging 55 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 9 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 1 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (108)
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 2 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 1 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 13 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 39 Limited public surface area
Emerging 52 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 1 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (55)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “LMS” 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 55 companies ↓
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 |
|---|---|
| Education and Edtech | 55% |
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 114 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged LMS, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Access Clarity | 32.2 | 23.9 | +8.3 | 114 |
| Contract Quality | 23.4 | 17.2 | +6.2 | 114 |
| Discoverability | 63.1 | 57.9 | +5.2 | 114 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 28.1 | 23.2 | +4.9 | 114 |
| Operational Transparency | 17.1 | 13 | +4.1 | 114 |
| Contract Governance | 8.1 | 6.5 | +1.6 | 114 |
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) | 8% | 13% | -5 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 4% | 12% | -8 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 22% | 11% | +11 |
| Security | 99% | 98% | +1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 2% | 2% | 0 |
| Governance rules | 15% | 16% | -1 |
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 Bindbee 69.3
- 2 Canvas 68.9
- 3 ThriveCart 67.5
- 4 Exec 65.5
- 5 360Learning 63.8
- 6 Go1 63.5
- 7 WorkRamp 61.3
- 8 MedTrainer 55.9
- 9 Drillster 50.9
- 10 Hotmart 50.7
- 1 Thinkific 53.2
- 2 Bindbee 49
- 3 Goethena 46
- 4 MedTrainer 44.9
- 5 Exec 43.5
- 6 Mindtickle 41.2
- 7 Skilljar 40.6
- 8 Adobe Captivate 38.4
- 9 ThriveCart 37.9
- 10 Go1 37.9
Coverage caveat. 103 of 114 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.