Personal Finance
Providers using this tag (110)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 2 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 1 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 4 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 6 Limited public surface area
Emerging 36 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 60 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 1 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (7)
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 →
Developing 3 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 1 Limited public surface area
Emerging 3 Early or largely undocumented
Companies reaching this through an API (2)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Personal Finance” 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 101 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Personal Finance, 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 | 25.8 | 26.5 | -0.7 | 101 |
| Contract Governance | 2.7 | 6.3 | -3.6 | 101 |
| Operational Transparency | 6.9 | 13.7 | -6.8 | 101 |
| Discoverability | 50.5 | 58.1 | -7.6 | 101 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 11.8 | 23.2 | -11.4 | 101 |
| Contract Quality | 3.8 | 17.6 | -13.8 | 101 |
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) | 6% | 12% | -6 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 6% | 11% | -5 |
| Security | 98% | 98% | 0 |
| Arazzo workflows | 0% | 2% | -2 |
| Governance rules | 2% | 14% | -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 MX Technologies 71
- 2 Method Financial 67.3
- 3 SoFi Technologies 56.4
- 4 OptionsAhoy 51.7
- 5 Klutch 42.8
- 6 Era 41.2
- 7 Shelter 39.9
- 8 Splitwise 38.8
- 9 Planomy Tax Data 37.2
- 10 Toshl 33.8
- 1 SoFi Technologies 52.6
- 2 OptionsAhoy 49.1
- 3 Klutch 41.9
- 4 Method Financial 39.4
- 5 Era 33.6
- 6 Planomy Tax Data 30.2
- 7 MX Technologies 29.1
- 8 Splitwise 26.4
- 9 Bloom Credit 24.8
- 10 Treasury 23.7
Coverage caveat. 97 of 101 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 5 October 2026, across 29093 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.