Open Data
Providers using this tag (572)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 4 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 23 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 71 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 149 Limited public surface area
Emerging 104 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 221 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (526)
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 10 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 78 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 109 Limited public surface area
Emerging 122 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 206 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (75)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Open Data” 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 75 companies ↓
Score breakdown
Where this tag sits
572 providers carry this tag directly, and 613 counting the 2 narrower tags below and the 3 beneath them — 41 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 566 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Open Data, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Discoverability | 64.7 | 57.9 | +6.8 | 566 |
| Contract Quality | 23.6 | 17.2 | +6.4 | 566 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 25.2 | 23.2 | +2 | 566 |
| Contract Governance | 8.4 | 6.5 | +1.9 | 566 |
| Operational Transparency | 14.1 | 13 | +1.1 | 566 |
| Access Clarity | 15.8 | 23.9 | -8.1 | 566 |
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) | 5% | 13% | -8 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 5% | 12% | -7 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 12% | 11% | +1 |
| Security | 99% | 98% | +1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 2% | 2% | 0 |
| Governance rules | 28% | 16% | +12 |
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 OpenMercantil 79
- 2 publiq 71.5
- 3 Entur 69.6
- 4 OpenSanctions 67.9
- 5 Open Food Facts 64.5
- 6 UK Power Networks 61.7
- 7 University of Waterloo 61.3
- 8 La Poste Groupe 60.5
- 9 Electricity North West 59.6
- 10 Sirenic 58.5
- 1 Sirenic 71.6
- 2 OpenGov 61.3
- 3 Comunicate.top API 60.7
- 4 data.world 58.4
- 5 Plinth US Grants Data 53.9
- 6 OpenMercantil 47.8
- 7 AI Crawler Index 47
- 8 Barclays 45.7
- 9 We > Ultrarich 45.5
- 10 Trove 45.1
Coverage caveat. 477 of 566 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.