Open Source
Providers using this tag (1689)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 44 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 99 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 260 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 492 Limited public surface area
Emerging 529 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 262 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 3 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (308)
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 19 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 38 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 41 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 98 Limited public surface area
Emerging 93 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 19 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (90)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Open Source” 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 90 companies ↓
Score breakdown
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 1487 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Open Source, 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 | 35.1 | 24.5 | +10.6 | 1487 |
| Operational Transparency | 22.9 | 13.2 | +9.7 | 1487 |
| Contract Quality | 27.1 | 18.6 | +8.5 | 1487 |
| Contract Governance | 13.6 | 9.7 | +3.9 | 1487 |
| Discoverability | 61.8 | 59.1 | +2.7 | 1487 |
| Access Clarity | 23.9 | 30 | -6.1 | 1487 |
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) | 19% | 18% | +1 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 18% | 16% | +2 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 10% | 13% | -3 |
| Security | 97% | 99% | -2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 2% | 1% | +1 |
| Governance rules | 56% | 36% | +20 |
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 GatiFlow 95
- 2 Appwrite 84.6
- 3 WSO2 84.3
- 4 Flagsmith 79.4
- 5 RudderStack 79.1
- 6 Ghost 79
- 7 Dify 78.8
- 8 Medplum 77.9
- 9 Airbyte 77.5
- 10 ClickHouse 77.1
- 1 Customermates 72.8
- 2 AIMEAT 70.8
- 3 1F916 66.4
- 4 huggingbay-xyz 66
- 5 Collate 65.9
- 6 robosystems-ai 65.6
- 7 Novu 61.2
- 8 Grid Status 60.4
- 9 shipstar-ai 60.3
- 10 Medusa 59.1
Coverage caveat. 1085 of 1487 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 14 November 2026, across 41591 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.
Compared on APIs.io
Side by side with another market, using the compare_cohorts tool: facet by facet, with the full tool response.
- vs Enterprise Open Source vs Enterprise: governance from the community, clarity from the sales team
- All comparisons →
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.